On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:22, WereSpielChequers
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 someone files an AFD on an
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard 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 from the psycholo
On 14 July 2011 18:22, WereSpielChequers 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 something and this has already
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 individu
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 July 2011 18:01, 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
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 tha
On 14 July 2011 18:01, 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 bud
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
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 edit
On 14 July 2011 00:40, Howie Fung 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 deployed.
Is there a
10 matches
Mail list logo
