Wikipedia talk:Article feedback/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Bug: Same user can mark feedback helpful or unhelpful multiple times
See this feedback. I have marked it as helpful twice. I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be able to do that. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. This is filed for the developers as bug 38459. --Malyacko (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was already filed. Twice ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, it's you, Andre. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was already filed. Twice ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section Break
I don't quite understand the above reply. I am asking this specific question: "Hi, many many articles have email addresses or URLs in the article feedback that need to be removed. Far too many to remove by hand. Could someone at WMF look into having a bot do the removing? I specified WMF because I suspect that other wikis have the same issue. If you tell me it's only a problem the English Wikipedia, then no WMF involvement is required. Is there someone at WMF that I can contact to ask about the possibility of setting up such a 'bot?" --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think he's saying that there are legitimate reasons for people to put URLs in feedback comments. While a bot could just remove feedback with email addresses outright, it should take more care with URLs (perhaps request oversight from a human?). Okeyes would have to answer your question about WMF contacts, but I think AFT5 is currently only running on the English Wikipedia. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. That makes sense. If it's only on the English Wikipedia, I know who to talk to about bots. I am curious, however; what possible legitimate use is there for putting a URL in a feedback comment? And even if someone can think of a rare situation where it is legitimate, is it worth creating a couple of million new places for spammers to advertise their wares?
- It would be legit if someone wanted certain (relevant, encyclopedic) information added and had a link to a source for said information. I would like to see how often that happens, and how low the S/N ratio actually is, before coming to a solid conclusion about whether we should allow it. I see another hand-coding study coming up. =)
- For an example see this comment at John Maynard Keynes:
"98.213.110.55 did not find what they were looking for. 3 days ago - Footnotes 102 & 103 refer to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is a different publication than where the article actually appeared. The "Economic Quarterly" of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is the correct name of the publication, and the archive of its articles is located at http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/ "
(I have adjusted the refs) Cases like this are extremely rare though, & if there was no feedback page he would probably have used talk, where this really belongs. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- If we put in a filter that disallows all URLs in article feedback, perhaps it could return a message telling the user about the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I don't know. It may be that you can only use one general-purpose disallow message, which rings a bell. Johnbod; really? If we removed the one mechanism for leaving feedback that didn't require wikimarkup or finding the tiny talk button at the top of the article, he would have left this feedback having learnt wikimarkup and found the tiny button? :p Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hundreds of thousands of users have discovered and posted to talk pages and/or learned wikimarkup (including you, of course). I'm not sure what you're incredulous about. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's a fairly high commitment for "I'd like someone to fix this typo" or "can someone add an image, please?" Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hundreds of thousands of users have discovered and posted to talk pages and/or learned wikimarkup (including you, of course). I'm not sure what you're incredulous about. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I don't know. It may be that you can only use one general-purpose disallow message, which rings a bell. Johnbod; really? If we removed the one mechanism for leaving feedback that didn't require wikimarkup or finding the tiny talk button at the top of the article, he would have left this feedback having learnt wikimarkup and found the tiny button? :p Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we can disallow URLs in feedback comments without in any way disallowing those sorts of comments. It would be only in those extremely rare situations where the URL is legitimate that the user would have to use the talk page (or type w w w . e x a m p l e . c o m like folks do on the thousands of sites that disallow URLs in comments).
I realize that some folks thing the whole system should be scrapped, but even if they are right that isn't going to happen here, and discussing it is a WP:DEADHORSE. What I am proposing has a reasonable chance of happening, so could you please let the conversation go in the direction of discussing my proposal instead of veering off into larger issues? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
A Modest Proposal for improving article feedback
A Modest Proposal for improving article feedback:
- Disallow all email addresses.
- Disallow all URLs.
- Disallow all markup, HTML or Wikimarkup.
- Disallow all messages that exceed
2564096 characters. - Create a list of content that can be deleted / hidden on sight by patrolling humans.
The list should contain:
- Nonsense/test messages such as asdfghjk.
- Any sort of advertising of a product or cause.
- Attempts to reveal personal information.
- TBD - the above list needs to be expanded.
In my opinion, this would make many sorts of abuse impossible, while allowing pretty much all legitimate comments. Those very few legitimate comments that would be disallowed are a small price to pay to make article feedback an inhospitable place for vandalism and spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The list sort of already exists via the feedback policy; on the others, email addresses should already be disallowed. Hard-coding these in is unnecessary since AFT5 is integrated with the edit filter :). I'd strongly advise against a 256 character limit, though; some of the most helpful submissions I've seen have been longer. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for the 256 character limit. Any objectionable feedback that's that long probably trips one of the other filters, and I've seen several long comments that were quite helpful. It also seems like the feedback tool does already have a hard-coded character limit. As Oliver said, the list is already covered by the feedback policy, as well as general Wikipedia content policy, so we can hide or oversight that kind of feedback right now. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the 256 to 4096 in the proposal above -- surely some restriction is acceptable to everyone. I am not concerned with suggestions being already in place -- I just count those as consensus agreeing with the proposal. Of course, if somebody published a list of the current restrictions, I could check the list and not propose something that is already in place, but in general it is a bad idea to publish that sort of thing; doing so helps the spammers to stay right under the limits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just tested what the software would actually allow. I posted this feedback, which is 3833 characters long. I put paragraph breaks in the input box, but they don't show up in the output. I could conceive of someone writing useful feedback that was that long, but much longer would take way too much time for most non-editors, and without paragraph breaks, it would be unreadable anyway. Most of the abusive long feedback seems to be of this type (copy/paste of article text). Is there a way for the edit filter to check for that? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just for comparison, this feedback is exactly 256 characters long. Looking at it, I agree that 256 is too short. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just tested what the software would actually allow. I posted this feedback, which is 3833 characters long. I put paragraph breaks in the input box, but they don't show up in the output. I could conceive of someone writing useful feedback that was that long, but much longer would take way too much time for most non-editors, and without paragraph breaks, it would be unreadable anyway. Most of the abusive long feedback seems to be of this type (copy/paste of article text). Is there a way for the edit filter to check for that? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the 256 to 4096 in the proposal above -- surely some restriction is acceptable to everyone. I am not concerned with suggestions being already in place -- I just count those as consensus agreeing with the proposal. Of course, if somebody published a list of the current restrictions, I could check the list and not propose something that is already in place, but in general it is a bad idea to publish that sort of thing; doing so helps the spammers to stay right under the limits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Links to ongoing data analysis
So, I look at the main page here, and what a lot of people want to see is the research that is demonstrating the "value" of this tool. We don't want to see videos, we want to see the results. Please include links to all of the ongoing statistical analyses on the page for the tool.
I absolutely do not believe that use of this tool should be expanded any further without direct consultation with the English Wikipedia community. Frankly, I believe we are doing the readers who take the time to leave feedback a very great disservice with this tool; they have every reason to believe that their feedback will be considered and will lead to an action in the article, when in fact that almost never happens, statistically speaking. The tool has no impact statistically speaking on recruiting and engaging new editors. What little incorporation of feedback into articles is almost exclusively done by the small core of editors who pay attention to feedback, not by the editors who more regularly curate the page (and are usually most familiar with the subject), thus indicating that this tool has not engaged the existing editorial community either. Risker (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm...slightly confused; either we haven't linked provided the statistical analysis or it's possible to make judgment calls "statistically speaking", but not both :). As I've said in the past, we're currently working up the most recent studies into a presentable format and will publish them in their final form as soon as we have their final form (as an aside, I'd dispute almost all of your claims here). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Meantime, with no statistics, what she says seems rather more correct. How could no statistics demonstrate any impact? -— Isarra ༆ 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Er. No. First, there is statistical data (both data that we've released in the past, that Risker has seen, or been presented with the opportunity to see, because she's signed up to our newsletter). Second, her statement wasn't "there has been no demonstrated impact through statistics" but "the statistics have shown there has been no impact". "the statistics have shown there has been no impact" and "we have seen no statistics" are mutually exclusive. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not really an aside. You just want a paragraph break, to sync with Risker's post. That is, all your previous sentences replied to her first paragraph; then you had the aside marker; then all the subsequent sentences replied to her second paragraph. So replying with a paragraph break would be most natural, to me at least.
- Anyway, you've stated that you're planning on releasing this tool (AFTv5) on all articles on the English Wikipedia in March 2013. Is there going to be time for a community vote or RFC? I believe the Pending Changes RFC(s) took months and months. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Probably, but that was mostly due to the decision to sort of sub-divide it into "do we want it, okay, now how do we want it, okay, now are we sure that's how we want it". You know as well as I do that a standard RfC lasts 30 days, so sure, there's enough time. I can't guarantee that Engineering will directly accept any outcome because I don't control Engineering, but I plan to engage with any RfC that shows up fully. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oliver, I think people are complaining that you haven't started an RfC yourself yet. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, MZMcBride has started drafting one, hence the ambiguity - and why me writing one up would be awkward at best. It's not really standard operating procedure for new extensions/software initiatives/whatever to run through RfCs (can you imagine how much it would delay our dev processes? Not that they're not already fairly slow :/) as MZMcBride himself knows. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see a dichotomy between tools that make editors' lives easier (PageCuration, Drafts, etc.) and tools that make editors' lives more difficult (ArticleFeedbackv5, FlaggedRevs, etc.).
- I guess we just need to start an RFC by February 26, then? That should be simple enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, MZMcBride has started drafting one, hence the ambiguity - and why me writing one up would be awkward at best. It's not really standard operating procedure for new extensions/software initiatives/whatever to run through RfCs (can you imagine how much it would delay our dev processes? Not that they're not already fairly slow :/) as MZMcBride himself knows. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oliver, I think people are complaining that you haven't started an RfC yourself yet. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Probably, but that was mostly due to the decision to sort of sub-divide it into "do we want it, okay, now how do we want it, okay, now are we sure that's how we want it". You know as well as I do that a standard RfC lasts 30 days, so sure, there's enough time. I can't guarantee that Engineering will directly accept any outcome because I don't control Engineering, but I plan to engage with any RfC that shows up fully. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Meantime, with no statistics, what she says seems rather more correct. How could no statistics demonstrate any impact? -— Isarra ༆ 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
aaand some additional data is here! Check out m:Research:Article feedback/Final quality assessment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Blank feedback again? Seriously?!
Can't the developers please sort out these useless blank feedback forms?! We're told repeatedly that the issue has been solved, only to have it rear its ugly head again and again. How difficult can this be?! Here's an example of yet another spate of them. MeegsC (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how much of the feedback on that page was hidden, but I do see that three of the four blank feedback posts that are visible are quite old. Shouldn't this edit filter be catching blank feedback? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- You'd think. But if you look at today's (i.e. current) feedback, it's still happening as of noon today. Sigh. MeegsC (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, does that filter only work for "autoconfirmed" editors? And if so, are IP editors ever autoconfirmed? MeegsC (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, the filter has a !, which in programming languages usually indicates "not". --Izno (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Don't know much about that. I'm even more mystified then; why does a completely blank feedback form not trigger this filter? MeegsC (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not knowing exactly how the filter works, I would surmise based on the comments that the trigger for the filter is occurring in more than 10% of feedback actions, which causes the filter to disable itself. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be the case. The filter has been working all day today. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- 10% is a pretty low threshold for a blank filter. I would expect the natural rate of blank feedback to exceed that. Perhaps someone has statistics?
- If the anti-spam filters have the same behavior, wouldn't a spammer be able to disable the filter simply by spamming in a high enough quantity? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- And yet it clearly isn't working properly. If you look at the feedback currently being posted, it's chock-a-block with blank feedback forms. Oliver, can you please get the developers to fix this? Again?? MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the problem is that when someone posts a blank feedback comment, the software leaves the length field blank instead of recording 0. Look at the details of any blank feedback comment - it doesn't report anything for length. If that is indeed what's happening, it should be easy enough to fix. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- And yet it clearly isn't working properly. If you look at the feedback currently being posted, it's chock-a-block with blank feedback forms. Oliver, can you please get the developers to fix this? Again?? MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be the case. The filter has been working all day today. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 03:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not knowing exactly how the filter works, I would surmise based on the comments that the trigger for the filter is occurring in more than 10% of feedback actions, which causes the filter to disable itself. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Don't know much about that. I'm even more mystified then; why does a completely blank feedback form not trigger this filter? MeegsC (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, the filter has a !, which in programming languages usually indicates "not". --Izno (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, does that filter only work for "autoconfirmed" editors? And if so, are IP editors ever autoconfirmed? MeegsC (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- You'd think. But if you look at today's (i.e. current) feedback, it's still happening as of noon today. Sigh. MeegsC (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
<--The problem is, they keep "fixing" it. And it keeps breaking! :P MeegsC (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll bring it up :/. Sorry this keeps happening! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- A more fundamental question would be "what flaw in our software development process makes it so that bugs are not caught by automated regression testing? Is it a simple mater of some missing or flawed test cases, or is it a more fundamental problem like not even having a test suite?" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't a bug. Yes, if you look at "show me all comments regardless of other factors" it shows you blank comments; this is not because we are, bug-wise, allowing people to submit blank comments but because the current mechanism stores data from people who just hit yes/no as blank comments (which is, imo, preferable to getting a detachment between percentages/numbers and the comments actually visible). If anyone can think of a better solution to this problem I would love to hear it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- If we want to keep this behavior, then perhaps the blank feedback can be collapsed on the feedback page so that it only takes up the space occupied by the top line. However, I'm not sure I like the idea of collecting blank feedback comments. That data is even less useful than the old AFT. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 20:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is the software storing this blank feedback temporarily and purging it if it's not completed? If so, then I don't see why those incomplete feedback comments should be counted in the stats at all. They should be marked as incomplete in the database, and the code that crunches the numbers should filter out the incomplete comments. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's permanent storage. That's a really good suggestion though (collapsing); I'll bring it up and see how much work it'll be. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't a bug. Yes, if you look at "show me all comments regardless of other factors" it shows you blank comments; this is not because we are, bug-wise, allowing people to submit blank comments but because the current mechanism stores data from people who just hit yes/no as blank comments (which is, imo, preferable to getting a detachment between percentages/numbers and the comments actually visible). If anyone can think of a better solution to this problem I would love to hear it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- A more fundamental question would be "what flaw in our software development process makes it so that bugs are not caught by automated regression testing? Is it a simple mater of some missing or flawed test cases, or is it a more fundamental problem like not even having a test suite?" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Template removal
Hello. Is it possible to remove the templates from articles on request? I just encountered an editor who asked to delete his/her well developed articles because s/he dislikes the template. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll also bug you as well. I have a simple question. What is the main difference between articles with "Help improve page" tag, and those with "Rate this page"? What are the different concerns involved in the use of "Help improve page" tag, instead of "Rate this page". Here's my situation, I really dislike my articles that have a different tag on the bottom of the articles, as opposed to most of them with "Rate this page". Some of them have completely valid articles, and then suddenly ended up with the same dilemma. Is it mainly because of the grammar and punctuality of the article, or the article does not meet the quality standards? Thank you. --Raymarcbadz (talk / contribs) 15:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's just an attempt to receive feedback from our readers, Raymarcbadz, absolutely harmless. You can take the feedback as an inspiration or advice, you can ignore it etc. It doesn't mean your articles don't meet the quality standards. They are pretty good, don't be discouraged. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you say that it is an attempt to receive feedback from our readers, I don't think the tag will be replaced. Feedbacks will always take place in the long run. Seriously. --Raymarcbadz (talk / contribs) 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the articles are selected randomly. It can't be problematic to remove the template. I just don't know how, that's why I'm here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is going to come a time where there is not a template and article feedback is default to on. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Uff, poor Raymarcbadz. You mean all articles? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Articles were selected randomly to "trial" the new (i.e. "Help improve page") feedback form. The ongoing complaint regarding the "rate this page" form was that casual readers had no way to say what they thought was wrong or missing from the article. While some of the articles the "new" form has been added to may indeed already be "well-developed", many are not. This allows our readers to help suggest improvements for those articles. And even well-developed articles may benefit from suggestions. At least, that's the theory! Eventually, all articles in Wikipedia are scheduled to have the new feedback form, though there will probably be an RfC posted in the next month or so to discuss that as a community. MeegsC (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will all articles be replaced with "Help improve page" tag instead of the "Rate this page" tag in the future or a new feedback form? And for the new feedback form, what does it look like? --Raymarcbadz (talk / contribs) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Final question, which feedback tool seemed to be more effective? "Help improve page" tag or "Rate this page" tag?--Raymarcbadz (talk / contribs) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the current plan is to have the "Help improve page" box on every page. (If you go to the article's talk page, then click on "View reader feedback" up near the top of the page, it will show you any feedback left for "your" articles.) The big problem with the "Rate this page" box is that it provides no way for users to leave useful feedback. MeegsC (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Basically "What MeegsC said" (which I find myself trotting out an annoyingly large number of times ;p). Eventually, with 100 percent deployment (hopefully March) all pages will feature the "help improve" form. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the current plan is to have the "Help improve page" box on every page. (If you go to the article's talk page, then click on "View reader feedback" up near the top of the page, it will show you any feedback left for "your" articles.) The big problem with the "Rate this page" box is that it provides no way for users to leave useful feedback. MeegsC (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Articles were selected randomly to "trial" the new (i.e. "Help improve page") feedback form. The ongoing complaint regarding the "rate this page" form was that casual readers had no way to say what they thought was wrong or missing from the article. While some of the articles the "new" form has been added to may indeed already be "well-developed", many are not. This allows our readers to help suggest improvements for those articles. And even well-developed articles may benefit from suggestions. At least, that's the theory! Eventually, all articles in Wikipedia are scheduled to have the new feedback form, though there will probably be an RfC posted in the next month or so to discuss that as a community. MeegsC (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Uff, poor Raymarcbadz. You mean all articles? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is going to come a time where there is not a template and article feedback is default to on. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the articles are selected randomly. It can't be problematic to remove the template. I just don't know how, that's why I'm here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you say that it is an attempt to receive feedback from our readers, I don't think the tag will be replaced. Feedbacks will always take place in the long run. Seriously. --Raymarcbadz (talk / contribs) 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's just an attempt to receive feedback from our readers, Raymarcbadz, absolutely harmless. You can take the feedback as an inspiration or advice, you can ignore it etc. It doesn't mean your articles don't meet the quality standards. They are pretty good, don't be discouraged. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- You should be able to remove the boxes by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist to the article in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Nikkimaria. It works. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Article feedback RFC now being drafted
Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Feedback from my watched pages"
So, I click on this link on my watchlist page - it momentarily shows a bunch of feedback entries, which then vanish to be replaced with: "Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser."
Clearly my browser (Firefox nightly) can display them - since I could see them, if only for a second. Additionally, the message isn't entirely helpful - what browsers ARE supported? (Hohum @) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- We're fixing this bug :/. So, we don't support development versions and things like the iPad, and the way this was implemented was as a positive list of things we do support; so "if on list, then display, if not, then don't". I appreciate this isn't the ideal situation, but it's slightly preferable to listing every browser we don't support. Usually we'd just hope it would degrade gracefully, but because this is a reader-participating feature allowing for that has a higher cost in this one case. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on Article feedback opened
Hi all,
The request for comment on article feedback has opened. All editor are invited to comment, endorse other users's views, and/or add their own view.
Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Separate Tab
The feedback tool should be a separate tab in the left tab bar (Example: | Article | Talk | Feedback |). Maybe the Feedback button could have a color according to how good or bad the feedback is, warning people that something might be wrong with the article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed and suggested; it was thrown out on the grounds that we're trying to move away from the tab model and it would be too high profile (which was a bit disappointing for me - I was the one who suggested it!) Thank you for your suggestion anyway, though :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Feedback on an article.
I was contributing to this article (List of World Heritage Sites in Germany). And I'd like your feedback and maybe a little help to improve it. Steve92341 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contribution! As you are likely asking for feedback on your changes on that specific article I'd recommend posting on the talk page of that article at en:Talk:List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Germany. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
User interface on Article Feedback
I demand that the new version of article feedback must have the same size with the "Rate this page". You'll still place the comment box similar with the help improve page, but please add ratings portion, to make the feedback more reliable and interactive. THANK YOU! I'M PISSED WITH THE SIZE OF A NEW FORM! I WANT THE NEW FORM THE SAME SIZE WITH THE RATE THIS PAGE FORM. Thank you and god bless. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- You "demand"? Please, take a deep breath, stop shouting, and calm down!! I'm assuming that you're still upset that this new form is on "your" articles, and think that it somehow indicates that those articles are not up to snuff. Can I point out that the form is also on a number of FA level articles? (See Flight feather for an example that I can think of off the top of my head.) And can you please explain why you think adding the ratings portion make feedback "more reliable and interactive"? MeegsC (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ray, you're going to achieve nothing through shouting. Do you think that capital letters communicate anything of use that the actual message didn't? Given that AFT5 is presumably about to be turned off, any redesign will not have an impact on you anyway. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I will "demand". No comment. Sorry, if I feel enraged again with the "new" form. This makes me bewildered and upset because I thought that this article needs to be improved, more than nothing. Do you think that all articles require the same principle? And what do you mean FA level articles? (I feel clueless). Why do I think they are more reliable and interactive? When I viewed the new form for the first time, I noticed that few options appeared, including the most important question in the form in which you already knew or discerned. Adding the ratings portion allow the users to rate the article based on what they have seen and read, and based on the article's quality, content, and data. Anyway, forget the word "interactive". I was getting overwhelmed with the use of words that should not be properly mentioned. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I will not shout, but seriously I was still enraged with the new form, like what I said to the previous user. Given that AFT5 is presumably about to be turned off, any redesign will not have an impact on you anyway. Can you justify in general terms? It seems difficult to build a picture of this statement. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Before you made your comments, we had a problem (if and how to implement article feedback) that we were working on. Then you became "pissed" and "enraged" and started making demands. Now we have two problems; article feedback and you.
- Ray, you're going to achieve nothing through shouting. Do you think that capital letters communicate anything of use that the actual message didn't? Given that AFT5 is presumably about to be turned off, any redesign will not have an impact on you anyway. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER
- I personally am disinclined to answer your questions or address your objections while you are behaving this way. So, are you going to continue ignoring everything written in our WP:CONSENSUS policy, or are you going to have a calm, reasoned discussion based upon evidence and logic? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Enraged" is a very strong term for a template! I'm intrigued—what "enrages" you about it? Just the fact that it's been put on your article? And do you seriously not know what an FA article is?! If so, please check this out. You will see that most articles on Wikipedia are very far from the FA standard. Allowing our non-technical users (i.e. those who haven't figured out how to add something to a talk page) to suggest improvements using a form like the new article feedback form can help us to improve all articles—even those you think are already "perfect". If all they can do is tell you that the article is incomplete by giving your article one star, they can't really help us identify what's missing. MeegsC (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. It seems that all of you there considered me as the most problematic and harsh user on Wikipedia, when I read your comments. Anyway, I am going to have a calm, reasoned discussion based upon evidence and logic, and I still respect the core values on your WP:CONSENSUS policy.
- To clarify the situation about the article feedback, what are the updates thus far? How and when will the newest article feedback form be fully implemented? I know this coming month, but give us exact details. Third question. What are the most possible signs of creating new articles that generate a result of "Help improve page" form, being displayed at the bottom of the article? I know it's randomly selected, but sometimes surprising. Fourth. Why do you satisfy about the interface of the newest feedback form? Are there any changes needed before full implementation? -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- MeegsC, I know what is FA. I've checked them a while ago. Sorry, I'm almost getting clueless. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- For your first and second questions, relatively few details of the future of Article feedback can be given until the end of the RfC on its future. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Enraged" is a very strong term for a template! I'm intrigued—what "enrages" you about it? Just the fact that it's been put on your article? And do you seriously not know what an FA article is?! If so, please check this out. You will see that most articles on Wikipedia are very far from the FA standard. Allowing our non-technical users (i.e. those who haven't figured out how to add something to a talk page) to suggest improvements using a form like the new article feedback form can help us to improve all articles—even those you think are already "perfect". If all they can do is tell you that the article is incomplete by giving your article one star, they can't really help us identify what's missing. MeegsC (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I personally am disinclined to answer your questions or address your objections while you are behaving this way. So, are you going to continue ignoring everything written in our WP:CONSENSUS policy, or are you going to have a calm, reasoned discussion based upon evidence and logic? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Article feedback request for comments scheduled to end Thursday, February 21
Hi. This is just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is scheduled to wrap up on Thursday, February 21. Any and all editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect
You will see on [1] that it says beside the big smiley on the top that "100% found what they were looking for" which is not true. Just thought I'd point out this bug.Curb Chain (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you run into this software error: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40613 --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of this
When the slogan of Wikipedia is to be bold?!?--Launchballer 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're assuming that everyone else is as bold as we are. Many people — for one reason or another — aren't. This allows those who don't want to learn how to edit Wikipedia to share their ideas for improvement too. MeegsC (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Quite! And at the same time, not everyone knows they can be bold. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Appending feedback coverage
I looked through the contributions of an IP which attempted to whitewash Indianola Academy: (Example, Example 2) Special:Contributions/65.183.118.107 reveals that...
- "17:11, 1 November 2012 . . (+65) . . Feedback: Wikipedia (needs to say what percentage of the time that wikipedia is right.)" - But I cannot see the feedback at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Wikipedia#580624 since it says "Article Feedback page not enabled for this page." - How do I view the feedback? Is it possible for me to add a note to that set of feedback explaining the history behind the IP leaving the feedback, if this is applicable?
Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Whisper: Right now, the computer boffins are converting older feedback entries into a new form (they've modified the database the feedback is stored in) and it's taking longer than expected. Until they're finished, we can't see any of the feedback entries. Hopefully, they'll be done within a week or so. Report back here if you still can't see it after that time! MeegsC (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Meegs! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Whisper: Right now, the computer boffins are converting older feedback entries into a new form (they've modified the database the feedback is stored in) and it's taking longer than expected. Until they're finished, we can't see any of the feedback entries. Hopefully, they'll be done within a week or so. Report back here if you still can't see it after that time! MeegsC (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
the links on the project page need to be fixed
the links
- This central feedback page for all of Wikipedia
- This sample article feedback page
- On other articles with feedback, such as this one
do not seem to work as intended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, they were (unfortunately) broken; now fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment found in a feedback post
Just passing this on:
[W]hy place this comment box at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. Who seriously scrolls all the way to the bottom of the page. It should be on the first page where I and no doubt many others finish up either to access the menu bar on the left or return to the search box
– 296.x (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- The answer is "because when we placed it at the top of articles (and we did try this), it worked too well". We ended up with a truly outrageous volume of posts - far more than could reasonably be moderated - and no statistically significant change in the value of the posts. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Why does it offer you the option of entering a comment...
...only to say that article feedback is not enabled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfair (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Demands for article feedback to be more widely available
Some demands for article feedback to be more widely available can be found at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Could not find what I was looking for in the article "starling" at the moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was discontinued?
It seems to me both sneaky and detrimental to the encyclopedia for this to have quietly reappeared after the recognition of a consensus to kill it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is now an "opt-in" system, whereby if one editor clicks on the "enable feedback" button in the toolbox, feedback will be enabled for that page. It seems odd that any editor at all can decide whether to enable feedback, but what do I know. It really is sad…how poor the quality of the feedback is. I’ve not read so much dribble in my life. RGloucester (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Question about text in suggestion box from a piece of feedback on the SF article
I was reviewing the feedback on the SF article, and there was this comment:
- "I would say, "Any suggestions . . . " i.e., pluralized, because you can have one or more suggestions"
Currently, the box asks if you found what you were looking for and then says "Write your suggestion here..." Perhaps it could say "Write your suggestions here..." instead? AgnosticAphid talk 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Admins disallowing the feedback
For a reason, when an admin protects a page, they disallow the feedback, with no intention to do it in most cases. I noticed this has happened with Latvia, Bangerz (album), Prism (Katy Perry album), Belinda (Belinda album), and I'm pretty sure there are many other pages involved in this. When an admin protects a page, isn't s/he notice they are removing the AF, or it needs to be more visible? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hiding 'Help improve this page' box
Is there some way to always hide the 'Help improve this page' box? - Crosbie 15:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a tool or isn't there?
I just learned about the Article Feedback Tool when an entry involving it (for the article -1) appeared on my watchlist. I came to this article to learn about it and found that it has allegedly been disabled for English Wikipedia, which certainly explains why I haven't noticed those buttons. But if it's been disabled, how is it that the activity log, Special:Log/articlefeedbackv5, has entries in it that are as recent as today? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Individual editors can turn it on for individual articles on a case-by-case basis with the "enable feedback" button in the Tools sidebar. So, some articles have it enabled, whereas the majority do not. I don't understand this system, but it is meant make it so that only articles that have people willing to look at feedback have feedback, rather than having a big pile of meaningless stuff that no one reads. RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops
Out of "what-does-this-button-do" curiosity, I clicked the link enabling feedback for MediaWiki and now I am unable to re-disable it. I guess the feedback is not needed now, and can be disabled. (Has anyone thought about a more descriptive link text? Or an "are you sure" question?) Keφr 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I followed the same technique trying to answer your question, and discovered that the cog on the far right at the top of the page brings up a link to disable feedback. This is not documented. Josh Parris 22:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Width of feedback tool
I think that width of article feedback tool should be increased to 100%. With present width, it looks ugly.--Wikiuser13 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)