Yes, the to-do list is very long, but I do hope we can take the time
to understand how users use the tool and how the reader feeback affects
both reader engagement (e.g., getting readers to read more), reader
conversation (e.g., providing an on-ramp into other forms of
contribution) and editing (e.g., providing feedback for editors on which
areas need attention).
The early data is definitely in line with your comment on holding our
work to a high standard. If we continue to see a difference between the
anon and registered distributions, we may want to offer the reader the
ability to see all vs. registered only (similar to how Rotten Tomatoes
has the [All Critics | Top Critics] filter).
We absolutely have plans to produce graphical representations of ratings
over time. One of the main uses of the tool is to provide the reader
perspective on whether/how much the public policy project improves the
quality of articles. Amy Roth will probably be pushing this area of
measurement forward, but if you have graphs you'd like to see, please
comment on the wiki.
Howie
On 9/30/10 12:25 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
This is really interesting Howie, thanks.
I'm particularly fascinated to see the couple of trends emerging that
you identified (although the sample size - quantitatively and
chronologically is small). That we tend to be our own worst critics
consistently rating our articles lower than non-logged-in users seems
logical - we hold our work to a high standard. Also, that Wikimedians
seem to have a greater consensus about what constitutes "good"
according to four metrics. Your "to do" section seems pretty busy too,
good luck with that! Especially to compare these ratings with the
existing quality metrics of FA/GA/B/C/Start...
I wonder whether you have any plans to produce graphical
representations of an article's rating over time? This would let us
see not only how an article is rated *now* but how that rating has
changed.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog <http://wittylama.com/blog>
Peace, love & metadata
On 29 September 2010 23:50, Howie Fung <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Everyone,
As some of you may know, we launched an experimental Article
Feedback feature as part of the Public Policy Initiative last
week. The "Article Feedback Tool" enables readers to quickly
assessthe sourcing, completeness, neutrality, and readability of a
Wikipedia article on a five-point scale. It is currently deployed
on about 300 articles [1] in the area of Public Policy on the
English Wikipedia. More details may be found on the blog post [2]
as well as the post on Foundation-l [3].
We've been capturing the ratings data and have some early analysis
to share around the types of ratings users are providing. There
are some interesting differences between anonymous and registered
users:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Early_Data
The dump of the article-level data is also available [4] for those
who are interested.
If anyone would like to be involved in the ongoing research and
evaluation of this tool, please sign up on the Article Feedback
Workgroup page. [5]
Howie
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_Pilot
[2]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/22/article-feedback-pilot-goes-live/
[3]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-September/061056.html
[4]
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aikdcg5HdSKbdFRhdUN1Rm1iZzB5dUdMUlY4YzAwNmc&hl=en#gid=0
<https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aikdcg5HdSKbdFRhdUN1Rm1iZzB5dUdMUlY4YzAwNmc&hl=en#gid=0>
[5]
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
