2011/4/5 David Gerard <[email protected]>: > What I see is grants supplying money to get initiatives that have been > long-wanted happening. The near-impossibility of getting even quite > simple things through a bureaucratic kudzu-choked community process > has been noted on this list *many* times.
To clarify, the Article Feedback Tool isn't funded by grant money. Measuring Public Policy Initiative article improvement was one of the timeline constraints for the project, but it had been in our list of wants and needs before that, it is being funded out of the core budget, and it's being tested on non-PPI articles. We'll wrap up this iteration of the tooling soon, and after that, will likely post an RfP for next-generation work so the core team can focus on rich-text-editing and new user interventions. Guillaume is working on some draft specs for next-generation work here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Extended_review if you want to jump in with thoughts, but note that it's still being iterated quite heavily. It's very easy to expand these kinds of tools into all different directions -- ratings/comments/tagging/sharing etc. -- and we're focusing on quality measurement as the main objective, but you'll see in the extended proposal that we're thinking about ways that readers can add extended feedback, going into a review database from where it could be promoted to the talk page if it's considered especially useful. In the current iteration we're also testing whether ratings can be a form of user engagement, by running a few post-rating invitations (create an account / edit the article / take a survey) -- if those invitations work, the tool could also play a significant role in our new user work. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
