On Jul 10, 2014 12:42 PM, "David Gerard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote: > > >> OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an > >> actual decent user survey would probably surprise everyone. > > > That was kind of my point - as much as editors do tend deal more directly > > with the readers, we've basically got two (rather biased) sides who both > > think they know what readers want and thus try to speak for them. This may > > not even be an issue, by itself, but unfortunately it's becoming a rather > > common tactic among some WMF staff to simply dismiss community feedback > > saying things like that the editors simply don't speak for the readers. But > > if this is really the case, what gives the WMF the right to speak for the > > readers either? > > Personally I'm getting rather tired of this. > > > > I concur that there's a bit much reasoning from no data, and we could > do with some. > > Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of > people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate > it. So yeah, real user surveys needed! > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
I agree that's sorely needed. We would need a few things to ensure it would work: --A neutral question. "Do you prefer A or B for...?". Half the takers get the new stuff as A, half get the old. No front loading of the results. --No self selection of participants. That's not easy but is necessary. People who take the time to self select may be more likely to perceive a problem. --Getting real feedback and actually analyzing it. Why did people like A or B? Is it for reasons that make sense to default it for logged in editors as well as casual readers? A lot of friction could be reduced if editors' workflows were not unexpectedly disrupted. --Publishing full (anonymized) results (not a summary only) and methodologies prominently. If we can do that, I'm all for the survey. Otherwise, it's useless. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
