The current development of Article Feedback is very strange: I'm from the croudsourcing company and I can tell that the user comments are useless most of the time since there are very little tools to analyze them (except maybe for some topics in English language).
Maybe the goal of the new incarnation of AF is not to give the feedback but to encourage people to write anything on Wikipedia and show the authors of the page that somebody reads their articles thus motivating them? ----- Yury Katkov On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:59 AM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > David Gerard wrote: > > On 14 September 2012 18:05, Matthias Mullie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Technical issues are the reason for its slow ramp-up: the underlying > >> architecture does not yet allow us to safely deploy to 100% of enwiki > and > >> we're currently working on resolving that. > > > > So is the AFTv4 data doing anything or being used for anything? > > Err, is the AFTv5 data doing anything or being used for anything? When I > skim <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama > >, > the signal-to-noise ratio is so imbalanced that the tool is useless. This > "comments section" of the site has quickly become filled with gibberish and > a fair number of biographies of living persons violations. It hasn't yet > reached the awfulness of a YouTube comments section, but it's certainly on > its way. I've no idea why resources are being invested in this way. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
