On Jul 10, 2014 12:42 PM, "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to