Thanks for taking the descriptions from Wikidata down from displays of en-WP on mobile. If you would like any input framing the RfC about "blockers" I would be glad to provide it. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw a box at the top right of Weightlifting at the Summer Olympics. It contained this text (boxes and some formatting omitted):
Take a short survey and help us
improve Wikipedia
<ext-quicksurveys-affinity-survey-
description>
Visit survey No thanks
Survey data handled by a third party. Privacy
I haven't heard of the survey and post to you because you created MediaWiki:Ext-quicksurveys-affinity-survey-description. "Visit survey" goes to a wrong page. I guess the page should have been [1] where I see a survey. "Privacy" was linked but I didn't test the link and no longer have the page open. I was logged in and have many users scripts but don't know of any that should break the text or link. I have the default "en" interface language. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that you considered possible consequences before implementing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 185#Next steps for enabling talk links for mobile anon users. While I think the first proposal was overly cautious, I think it's a good thing to at least consider the possibility of disruption before deploying a big change. So strangely..
I assume you don't have absolute control over everything, but it's a stark contrast between the extreme caution when the community asks for something and the complete lack of caution when the WMF or developers initiate something. (I have more examples but this is already too long) What I'm saying is, please, don't limit your caution to community initiatives. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Olga! Picking up from your comment here at VPT, I think there's potential in presenting some metadata to help readers better understand the degree to which they can trust an article. It'll have to be done well, though, since article quality is a tricky thing to measure, and not all pieces of metadata speak to it, and even if they do, not all readers may know how to interpret it.
First, to clarify the goal, it should be what I said above — helping readers better understand the degree to which they can trust an article — not "getting readers to trust us," which is what I saw in the consultant report, and reflects some unfortunate bleedover from the corporate world.
On the pieces of metadata to use, let's go through some of the featured criteria and see which things can speak to them:
well-written– An article that's had more contributors is more likely to have had its grammar refined.
comprehensive– This is correlated with article length. However, it's not equivalent to it: very niche topics like Yugoslav submarine Nebojša can be FAs without being very long. Perhaps you'd want to consider factors like incoming links or pageviews to estimate how long an article ought to be and then compare its actual length against that.
well-researched– This is basically references. With very few exceptions (e.g. leads, plots), everything should be referenced, and any segment of an article lacking references should ding its quality rating.
neutral– This is tricky to measure: more talk page activity (relative to the popularity of a topic) often means it's more controversial, but doesn't necessarily mean it's unbalanced (and in fact often means the opposite). The only really reliable indicator of neutrality issues is the presence of a maintenance tag indicating such.
stable– This can be measured algorithmically, but you have to go beyond just "most recent edit" (which could just be someone archiving a reference). The percentage of article text that has been modified recently would be a much better indicator. Reverts in the recent edit history would be a strong indicator of instability, as would be an open RfC on the talk page.
Brainstorming on some other factors: Protection status could certainly be a relevant piece of info to present here, and per the VPT convo we may be looking to move that anyways. The date an article was created is relevant, as are deletion nominations. The XTools article info page has some things that might be relevant. In particular, the authorship section (readers will likely want to know if one editor has authored 90% of a page) and the year counts (that graph is very useful to see when an article has gone through a growth spurt). Who Wrote That? could be useful if it was improved to the point where it didn't have to be a separate browser extension (something there's no intrinsic need for). And I'm curious about ORES scores, which in my experience tend to be fairly accurate.
Hope all that is helpful, and curious to hear your thoughts! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk 03:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you, OVasileva. Not only in appreciation for great work on the years-long Vector 2022, but for suffering slings, arrows, incivility, and personal attacks because of it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
Hi. You're enabling a very bad and corrupt organization and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's truly despicable that Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is taking in donations from readers by lying to them about the state of its finances and then using that money to hire folks like yourself to push through horrible software changes. A majority of respondents, when asked whether to deploy this worse skin, said no. And yet you and your team have wasted millions of dollars of donor money and barreled ahead despite this, all the while making false claims such as "if the community decides against deploying the skin, no deployment will be made" and writing misleading summaries about what the discussion "really" shows.
Will there be any repercussions or consequences for your team? Of course not, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. management and its board of trustees provide no actual accountability or oversight. But please don't think long-time community members haven't noticed you enabling this trash behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello OVasileva (WMF),
The case request about WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia has been declined by a majority of Wikipedia's arbitrators.
The request had been explicitly created as an "Ignore All Rules" request, but the Arbitration Committee disagrees about a need for ignoring its policies, which exclude "official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff"
from its jurisdiction and define it as "as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve"
in the "Scope and responsibilities" section. Its procedures describe an "expectation of prior dispute resolution"
that hasn't been fulfilled yet.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
On the 14th of February, you said the WMF were looking into publishing the results of user survey in response to our request and would update us when you know more. Do you have an update for us? BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Olga! I'm considering reviving the proposal to move GA/FA topicons next to the article title as a way to better highlight a piece of information important for helping readers understand the extent to which they can trust an article. The main stumbling block last time was the fact that a significant contingent of editors seemed to believe that readers already noticed and understood the GA/FA icons. Personally, I find that highly implausible, but at the prior discussion we had only anecdotal evidence. I know you and I previously discussed (here, continuing from here) the possibility of doing some user research testing to get some empirical data, so I wanted to follow up to see if that'd be possible.
I'm not an expert at designing UX research, but I imagine the setup might be something like this. Two different groups would be presented with a prototype page — one with the status quo position for the GA/FA icons, and one with them next to the article title. After the user has had the chance to look over the page, we'd ask questions like "Has this page undergone a peer review? [Yes] [No] [Not sure]," "Which designation does this page have? [Featured article] [Quality article] [Good article] [None] [Not sure]," and "How much do you trust the content on this page? [A lot] [A medium amount] [A little] [Not at all]" The responses to those questions, and how they differ between the designs, would be extremely useful information.
Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk 22:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️
Hi Olga! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Looking forward to collaborating on New Vector improvements in the coming year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers,