On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
wrote:
> A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to
> get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30)
> posts per person.
There is a well worn statement in Finnish folklore, that
A reminder that 1) people posting to this list need not be rude in order to
get their messages across and 2) there is a monthly limit of thirty (30)
posts per person.
User:AlexandrDmitri
foundation-l list moderator
2011/12/24 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
> complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
> feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
> this conversation ;p. If a
I don't think there's any need to be facetious; at the moment you're
complaining about a feature in the thread in which we announced that
feature's replacement, so there's really not much of a productive end to
this conversation ;p. If anyone is interested in participating in any of
the testing or
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT
> respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
> joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are,
> for whatever
The option to self-identify as an expert is more to try and gauge where AFT
respondents are coming from, as opposed to excluding non-experts. Average
joes are asked to provide comment, and then asked to identify if they are,
for whatever reason, *not* average joes.
On 24 December 2011 16:43, MZMcB
On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
>> and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
>> history exists either.) Something spec
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>>> the same from OTRS.
>
>> I dunno,
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>> the same from OTRS.
> I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think so, but readers
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
>> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
>> beings is totally and fundame
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
> beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the
> hard sho
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Oliver Keyes wrote:
>> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
>> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
>> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than t
Oliver Keyes wrote:
> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> "encyclopedia" bit, of course :-)). If you want thi
On 24 December 2011 11:00, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>
> > Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make
> > sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather
> > silly.
>
> I think you a
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make
> sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather
> silly.
I think you are confounding what moves around in your mind with "consensus".
The form
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes
wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
> > but instead your opinion *
I'm absolutely fine with that, sure.
On 24 December 2011 12:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes
> wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
>
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
> but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
> this divide is t
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions
> to
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
so I
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
> Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
> perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
> I'll know where you're
The article feedback tool has nothing to do with approving edits, though.
Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any misunderstandings
which woul
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
> To reply to Jussi; I think we're uniformly confused as to what you think is
> the link between an encyclopedia written by experts, and an encyclopedia
> that asks average joes to provide comments on articles (other than the
> "encyclopedi
Yup; once we move on to full deployment, there's going to be a special
feedback page (updated wireframes to follow) which will list all the
feedback each article has been given, as well as a centralised one to avoid
things slipping through the cracks.
Actually, we get quite a few ratings; the prob
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
> a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> concrete information on
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
concrete information on the data gathered, and so I can get the rationale
"from t
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
> > season
> >> for unpalatable truths, and not
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> If we want to
> make sure that our criticisms raised on Foundation-l are actually addressed
> I think we need to make that the relevant people are not afraid of being
> demonsided if they admit a mistake. Otherwise we'll just be dismissable a
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> IMO, a good attitude to have so long as you're not trying the same thing
> and expecting a different outcome. In the case of the AFT for example, you
> can clearly see in the documentation that each iteration (versions 1-4 and
> now 5) have bu
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>
> Trying to do something and not succeeding is not a failure - so long as we
> learn from the mistakes. As it says on the door as you leave the WMF office
> [so I have been told], "Let'
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
> season
>> for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer
>> this whole exercise has
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
season
> for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer
> this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from
> the grave
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the season
for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer
this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from
the grave, give it the "kiss of life" and do all sorts of hocus pocus and
I was afraid of that... That the real reason, the underlying reason, for
keeping the AFTv4 running all this time is because of the vanishingly small
number of readers who make a rating, see the 'call to action' and then stay
around long enough to become valuable editors in their own right.
If it
>> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
>> From: Tom Morris
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>
>> Message-ID:
>><
caaqb2s_bgkfaba1mlondrsxt7e+wxepwz+qqf
s we would be having an even steeper decline in the number
of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise.
WereSpielChequers
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
> From: Tom Morris
> Subject: Re: [Foundatio
That's basically my rationale, yup; thanks for explaining so clearly, Tom
:P. Sleep deprivation makes me a poor writer.
On 23 December 2011 10:58, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
> r
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> I'm NOT making the argument that the AFT is inherently bad (in fact I'm
> really looking forward to the v5 of the tool to see how much good-quality
> reader feedback we get, which will hopefully enliven a lot of very quiet
> talkpages). I'm als
I'm not going to reply to the *entire* email, because I don't have all the
data in front of me (and it's 3:40am - even if I did, I'm not going to
write anything massively coherent ;p) - I'll revisit when I've poked some
people to get some more info. However, one thing the current version has
been u
Oliver, with regards to Geni's question and your response, this is what I
understood was the situation too: that the use of AFTv5 was on a small subset
of articles to ensure minimum disruption to the editing community whilst still
being able to gain enough usage data from readers to know whether
I'm not seeing the problem there, actually; the feedback page itself isn't
up yet (again, just for testing) so editors aren't expected to do anything
with the feedback. Am I missing something?
On 22 December 2011 17:25, geni wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > That's cor
On 22 December 2011 13:11, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
> used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
> tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
> and labs :). Obviously
Actually, we're trying to avoid turning off AFT4. The reasoning is twofold.
On a product development front, the AFT5 presence is for testing purposes,
and for testing purposes only; it will be up for around 2-3 weeks so we can
build a decent picture of the quantity and quality of feedback we're
ge
Good-o. That's what I also understood your & Erik's emails to mean :-)
So - with regards to my original question?
In summary it was:
Now that the new versions (AFTv5) of the tool are being tested on 0.3% of
en.wp, can you turn off the now-obsolete "5-star rating" version currently
running o
And thanks for bringing this up, Jussi! You're usually pretty on the ball,
so if you misunderstood what I wrote, it's most likely because my prose was
unclear :). I appreciate the chance to correct myself before the poor prose
leads others to get the wrong impression too :).
On 22 December 2011 13
That's correct, Tom. 0.3 percent of the English language Wikipedia is being
used as a testbed for the *rest* of the English-language Wikipedia; a
tertiary testbed, since we've already run things through on both prototype
and labs :). Obviously if we decide "lets deploy to other projects" we'd
take
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:56, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Sorry, did a double-take there. Tell me I read that wrong, please! My
> eyes must be deceiving me or my reading comprehension not being
> quite up to the task right now... But some weird brainfart made me
> read that in such a way that
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>> One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry
>> if you've
>> already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles
>> that are not
>> pa
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> One thing I'd like to ask (which may be in the on-wiki documentation, sorry
> if you've
> already answered there) is what is going to happen to the other articles that
> are not
> part of this new test group?
Hi Liam,
this is the first time
Thanks for the notice Oliver. Glad to see the work is coming along with the
tool and I'm looking forward to seeing the data on how these new,
qualitative-focused, versions perform. Which one generates the best reader
feedback that is useful for editors and which generates good reader-to-newbie
Hey guys
Just dropping everyone a note to let you know that the new version of the
Article Feedback Tool -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 - is
now live on a subset of articles, in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_5 :). This may not
impa
51 matches
Mail list logo
