In the WMSE office, after talking with teachers about Wikiversity as a learning platform (and mostly what lacks in it to make it work as such) we have been thinking about talking with the community about a feedback tool at Wikiversity. If they would like it, could AFT be enabled there or should it be thought of as deprecated/abandoned alltogether?
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali* Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida> 0729 - 67 29 48 *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se> 2014-03-03 21:33 GMT+01:00 Fabrice Florin <[email protected]>: > Hi folks, > > We just removed the Article Feedback Tool from both the English and French > Wikipedia sites today at 19:10 UTC. > > This means that no feedback can be posted or viewed anymore on those > sites. > > In coming days, we will archive the feedback data in a public hub, so it > can be accessed without the tool. > > We will post on this thread as soon as that data archive is available, as > well as on this English Wikipedia tallk page: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Article_Feedback:_Next_Steps > > Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this experiment -- we hope you > learned as much from it as we did. :) > > Regards as ever, > > > Fabrice > > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Fabrice Florin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > As recommended in our report (1), we now plan to remove the Article > Feedback Tool entirely from both the English and French Wikipedia sites > this Monday, March 3, at 19:00 UTC (11am PT). > > So any editors who wish to transfer useful feedback to their article talk > pages should do it this weekend, using the built-in 'Discuss on talk > page' tool (2). We will also archive the feedback data in a public hub, so > it may be accessed even after the tool has been disabled. > > We appreciate all the good insights we've received from team and community > members about our Article Feedback report and recommendation to end this > experiment. We appreciate their observations (3) (4), many of which match > comments from our own team retrospective (5). And I'm particularly grateful > for Ori's kind words below, which mean a lot to me. :) > > Many great feature ideas have been proposed in these discussions, which > generally make good sense to me: I wish we had the resources to build them > as part of this project, but my hope is that some of them will be useful > for future projects. > > In my view, a key issue for this project is that we took on a very hard > problem with insufficient resources to effectively solve it. Our small team > engaged community members extensively throughout this experiment, and we > were grateful for all the good recommendations we received; but we simply > did not have the capacity to build all these features with a single > contract engineer. This taught us an important lesson, and we are now > staffing our teams more effectively for projects of this size, such as > Flow. > > On the whole, I think we all gained from this project, despite its > setbacks. A lot of the code and research tools we developed for Article > Feedback are now being used by other projects, so this experiment is > helping improve Wikipedia in more ways than one. > > In times like these, I am reminded of Thomas Edison's words about his own > experiments: 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't > work.' We too have learned a lot together from this exploration -- and I am > very grateful for everyone's willingness to experiment with us. I look > forward to more collaborations with you all in the future. > > Onward! > > > Fabrice > > > > (1) Article Feedback Report: > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report > > (2) 'Discuss on talk page': > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors#How_can_I_discuss_feedback_posts_on_talk_pages.3F > > (3) AFT5 Report Discussion: > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Report > > (4) AFT Talk page on English Wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Article_Feedback:_Next_Steps > > (5) AFT5 Wikimedia Team Retrospective: > > https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/document/d/1t0as8SIgDDCv_MJL3NxWtDSGrSMSxXxd1-GajFJoPMU/editteam > > (6) Gerrit ticket: > https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/112639/ > > (7) Bugzilla report: > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61163 > > > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Fabrice Florin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> As many of you know, we have been testing an improved version of Article >> Feedback v5 in two pilots on the English and French Wikipedias throughout >> 2013. The main purpose of this experiment was to increase participation >> on Wikipedia by inviting readers to leave comments on article pages. >> >> The French pilot just ended last month, providing informative results >> about this experiment. In the final RfC we ran on the French >> site<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_janvier_2014#Outil_de_retour_des_Lecteurs_:_r.C3.A9ponse_de_la_WMF> >> (1), >> about 45% of respondents wanted AFT5 removed >> everywhere<https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq_75_5y5sKWdDl0blpSbGRiS2ppRzlaaHZiV1dRMXc&usp=drive_web#gid=4>, >> while 38% wanted to keep it an opt-in basis, and 10% on help pages only >> (2); nearly everyone agreed it should not be on by default on all 40,000 >> pilot pages, let alone on the entire French Wikipedia. Their concerns are >> is consistent to what we heard from editors on the English and German >> pilots: overall, a majority of editors do not find reader comments useful >> enough to warrant the extra moderation work. >> >> Based on these pilot results, we recommend that Article Feedback be >> removed from our two pilot sites at the end of the month, as outlined in >> this >> report<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Report> (3) >> -- since the tool is not welcome by a majority of editors, despite its >> benefits to readers. >> > > Fabrice, I commend you for authoring this report. It is honest, > straightforward, and thoughtful -- and, I imagine, not easy to write. I > think it demonstrates a high standard of professionalism with respect to > feature development. It makes me proud to be a WMFer when I see us act with > such self-awareness. It's an example I'll try to emulate. > _______________________________________________ > EE mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee > > > _______________________________ > > Fabrice Florin > Product Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF) > > > > > _______________________________ > > Fabrice Florin > Product Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > EE mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee > >
_______________________________________________ EE mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee
