Sure; we are doing those tests (I think this marks the fifth, or possibly sixth time Dario and/or I have communicated this to you :p) and won't draw any conclusions until we've gathered the data.
you say 'logic and the statistics make me think otherwise' - can you explain what statistics? If you mean the below data, as I have already explained to you, that logically doesn't fly. The data merely provides our rate of decline - it does not provide any clues as to the reasons for that rate, or possible factors retarding it. On Friday, 23 December 2011, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> wrote: > The theory that the Article Feedback Tool may be encouraging newbies to > edit is an interesting one, though not in my view born out by the > statistics. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm > > Comparing the number of newbies in recent months with the same month last > year I can't help but notice that last year we were getting rather more > newbies. This current testing phase gives us the opportunity to test not > just against the earlier version but against no AFT at all. Of course its > possible that if we didn't have the AFT encouraging readers to rate rather > than edit articles we would be having an even steeper decline in the number > of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise. > > WereSpielChequers > > > >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +0000 >> From: Tom Morris <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >> <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >> < caaqb2s_bgkfaba1mlondrsxt7e+wxepwz+qqfcy3pnil-bv...@mail.gmail.com >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm >> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality >> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet >> talkpages). I'm also NOT making the argument that the WMF needs to seek >> some kind of mythical consensus for every single software change or new >> feature test. What I AM saying is that now that v4 has been depreciated it >> is both disingenuous to our readers and annoying to our community to have a >> big box appear in such valuable real-estate simply because it will >> eventually be replaced by a different, more useful, box. As you say, this >> replacement is "still quite some time away" so it's a long time to leave a >> placeholder on the world's 5th most visited website. >> > >> >> >From what I understood, part of the point of the article feedback tool >> was that it increased the number of readers who edit - because they >> click through the star ratings and then were invited to edit >> (apparently, despite the phrase "the encyclopedia you can edit" and a >> big link at the top of the article saying "Edit" and little links next >> to each section that say "edit", and ten years of people in the news >> media, academia and so on excoriating Wikipedia for being unreliable >> precisely because anyone can edit it, there is some group who do not >> know that you can edit Wikipedia). >> >> Even if we are no longer using the data collected from the previous >> incarnation of the AFT (I've looked at a few articles I've written to >> see what the AFTers think of it, and it is a minor curiosity), the >> fact that it may be encouraging newbs to edit seems like a fairly good >> reason for us to not jump the gun and switch it off prematurely. >> >> -- >> Tom Morris >> <http://tommorris.org/> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
