Hence the one comment on the Wikimedia blog article
(http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/%E2%80%9Crate-this-page%E2%80%9D-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/)
about the survey poll: http://www.vizu.com//poll-results.html?n=138785
50.5%
It will be griefed like YouTube comments.
-MuZemike
On
On 07/16/11 4:42 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 02:28, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/14/11 5:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to
On 27 July 2011 08:34, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 07/16/11 4:42 PM, Dan Dascalescu wrote:
After rating an article, there is this link asking Did you know you
could edit this page.
Just saying that is not enough to inspire people to edit.
It turns out it is:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/%e2%80%9crate-this-page%e2%80%9d-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/
snip
While these initial results are certainly encouraging, we need to
assess whether these editors are, in fact,
Actually there are a number of other tests we need to run before we
know whether Article Rating really is a net positive or a net
negative.
I hoped they would compare the 100,000 with a control sample to see
which gets more edits:
On 27/07/2011, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
The issue I've noted is that it is being used as a warfare tool on
controversial articles. I've not seen it mentioned on a talk page yet; but
one contentious article (on a subject with a large online following,
entrenched
Re Ray's comment:
It's difficult to see any logical connection between an article rating
system, and encouraging new editors.
I'm not convinced that we fully understand all the different things
that made Wikipedia work, and especially what are the elements that
didn't motivate us individually
On 07/14/11 5:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
it?
It's difficult to see any logical connection between an article rating
system, and encouraging new
On 07/14/11 10:01 AM, MuZemike wrote:
However, you've made a good point there about gaming the system and
intentionally trying to garner high ratings. For example, one could
create a horrid piece of crap article which would have no chance of
staying on Wikipedia and canvass his/her buddies to
On 14 July 2011 00:40, Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just wanted to pass along a note to let everyone know that earlier today, we
ramped up the Article Feedback Tool to 10% of articles on the English
Wikipedia. That brings the total to approximately 374K articles with the
tool
Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
it?
Remember there is a risk that this could exacerbate the templating
trend. Just as we need to value edits that fix problems and remove
templates above
A couple of fair points. However, I would disagree that everyone is
interested in editing or improving the encyclopedia; some are perfectly
content on reading the content therein and, if given the chance, say
what they think about out (not necessarily on Wikipedia, but could be
anywhere on the
On 14 July 2011 18:01, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
However, you've made a good point there about gaming the system and
intentionally trying to garner high ratings. For example, one could
create a horrid piece of crap article which would have no chance of
staying on Wikipedia and
Cutting off the top or bottom 10% wouldn't work if 4chan targets the
articles written by one of our editors, if anything the non4chan votes
will be in the top 10% that you discard.
To be honest I'm not particularly worried if people canvass their
mates to give straight 5s to an obscure article
WereSpielChequers,
thanks for the great feedback. We are going to analyze the overall effect of
AFT on article edit volume. More generally, for all retention features we are
currently deploying, we will be studying both how they affect edit activity at
article-level and how they affect
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 July 2011 18:01, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
However, you've made a good point there about gaming the system and
intentionally trying to garner high ratings. For example, one could
create a horrid piece of crap article which
On 14 July 2011 18:22, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Cutting off the top or bottom 10% wouldn't work if 4chan targets the
articles written by one of our editors, if anything the non4chan votes
will be in the top 10% that you discard.
[...]
Unless I'm missing
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Making all the rating data publicly
available for analysis (with no usernames or IPs attached, of course)
is a first step. Before proposing solutions to problems in the data,
look at the data ;-)
A sound recommendation
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:22, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest I'm not particularly worried if people canvass their
mates to give straight 5s to an obscure article that only a few
hundred people will ever notice. I would anticipate that will happen
whenever
Everyone,
Just wanted to pass along a note to let everyone know that earlier today, we
ramped up the Article Feedback Tool to 10% of articles on the English
Wikipedia. That brings the total to approximately 374K articles with the
tool deployed.
We'll be posting additional information on the
20 matches
Mail list logo
