Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5: Difference between revisions

Link hard to find

Is anyone else having difficulty finding the link to Special:ArticleFeedbackv5? I haven't been able to remember that, so I've got this really convoluted way of getting to the page which involves going through my Watchlist. The link should be more obvious on wiki. I don't know if you want to add a "see all feedback from this page" on the feedback tool itself, or if you want to add a "Feedback" tab next to "Talk" for each article that has V5 on it. My point is that IMO, there's still a big gap between readers who submit feedback that's squirreled away somewhere, and editors who don't know how to find the feedback. I'm assuming that this all will be fixed when the tool is fully deployed, but I'm just noting this problem now. Jesse V. (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just type WP:AFTS into the search bar (stands for Article Feedback Tool Special page). benzband (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And BTW i think the idea of a "feedback" tab is good, or at least a link on the tool itself. But then i don't know if this would be easy or even possible to set up (this said, i trust the devs have got plenty in store for us, just don't give them any ideas :-) benzband (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression the "Feedback" tab was already planned. I'm imagining seeing it next to the "Talk" tab. So it's "Article", "Talk", "Feedback", [blank space], "Read", "Edit", "View History". Don't mean to be a pessimist here, but one consequence I see is that it would allow readers to see their own feedback, which could be abused. Currently the feedback is squirreled away and so vandals don't yet have the satisfaction of seeing their statements published for everyone to see. Over the last few weeks, Talk:Minecraft has been vandalized with gift code offers. I don't want to see that happen for the feedback tool. :) Jesse V. (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we had planned the tab; we're having trouble working out a way to do it elegantly, though :). In the meantime there's a link on the talkpage of each page with AFT5 deployed to the specific AFT5 page - see Talk:Battle of Romani, for example. I agree we should be making this a lot more prominent, though. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you turned "View history" into simply "History? ........ Then you might have enough room to add the tab nicely.--Coin945 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop-down menu bug

On Special:ArticleFeedbackv5, when I click the drop-down menu labeled "more filters", the menu appears left-justified in-line with "109088 feedback posts since Dec. 2011". Screenshot is here. Is anyone else seeing this? It would be bad if this occurred to lots of people when full deployment comes along. I'm running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SPI, on Google Chrome 19.0.1084.56m, since it's clearly the best web browser. :) Jesse V. (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh; weird! Okay, I'll bugzilla it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now at this address. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the same thing (see below). I'm running Safari 5.1.7 on a MacBook Air. David¹²¹⁷ 00:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality control

I have taken a look at the feedback on various pages and have been thinking about it. Judging by much of it, I think we should somehow encourage quality control in that area. Many of the contributions lack capitalisation, proper punctuation, and reflect a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's principles. I think there should be some link or small box with text that would let people interested in submitting feedback know that while contributions are welcome, clarity of writing is also appreciated, and that Wikipedia can't fulfill every conceivable request. While we already have a "What's this?" link, I think it should be changed to "Feedback rules" or "Please read before contributing".

At the moment, the template Uw-vandalism1 looks like this:

• Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

However, I'm not sure if the posting of feedback qualifies as editing, so perhaps, for the sake of legal accuracy, this template (and all similar ones too) should be changed.

Anyway, my main point is that vandalising feedback pages should be declared just as illicit, subject to WP:BLP principles, etc. as (doing the same to) all other Wikipedia pages, and the people interested in using the feedback function should be made aware of this by all means.—Toccata quarta (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, vandalising the feedback page has been declared against the rules; the form links to Wikipedia:Feedback guidelines before you hit submit. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but I think that people should be encouraged to checking it out by means of a more noticeable link. One thing that also worries me is that, in several cases of abuse, the abusers received no warning on their talk pages; people either were content to flag their feedback for abuse or just scroll past it.—Toccata quarta (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We should probably try to impress on people the need to talk to users. However, most feedback comes from IPs, many of which are dynamic - I worry it could just lead to a lot of confused people unsure why they're getting messages about feedback they never wrote. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We cannot expect feedback writers to use correct spelling and capitalising. What they do is a donation of their time with as little as possible restriction on what they say. I am surprise how little vandalism or spam there is in the feedback so far. Does that mean that the edit filters are already working against this? However one issue I have noticed is that quite a few postings are being marked as abuse when the comments are not abuse at all. For exasmple Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Newt_Gingrich/149665 was automatically tagged due to all upper case, that was not very friendly. Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Orbital_hybridisation/149531 tagged as abuse to to repeating characters, the feedback was not helpful as we just have someone saying they did not find what they wanted without telling use what it was. Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Android_(operating_system)/148934 was auto flagged as abuse, but the reason is a mystery. So what we need is a clear definition of abuse, which is going to be different to what editing an article abusively is.

Totally agreed; that front is up to the community, though :). We've internally had a debate - do we write firm guidelines about this sort of thing? How much of the edit filter work do we do? - and my perspective has always been to give as much as possible to the community. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be opening up a world where the WMF starts writing policy, both for legal reasons, and for ethical ones. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Feature request

Hello everyone. I am here to request a feature which can be helpful for this project. I would like to have more filters added in the Articles feedback log besides the current one (Featured,Resolved and all). For example, project specific (if the particular article comes within the scope of any Wikiproject), category specific (class or importance of the article) and others. Please let me know if they already exist. ThanksVIVEK RAI :  Friend?  07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I second this idea, along with time range, or ordinal range selection. It is a pain to just keep clicking more, more, more to see further back in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The central feedback page is good, but most of the feedback is on subjects I don't know much about. If each wikiproject could have its own central feedback page, showing only feedback on pages related to that project, it would be much more useful. In the same way I would appreciate a personal feedback page showing only feedback on articles in my watchlist. This would give almost the same functionality as filters as mentioned above but might keep the feedback page cleaner. Ulflund (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow Feedback to be categorized in the contents list. Allow feedback voting/supporting.

-Picking Categories before submitting feedback: When someone submits feedback, then before they submit there feedback they can check the box or boxes of pre established categories. Then there feedback can go in the right category or they can click on the category title that might be next to the box, to see other feedback only in the category there interested in. Then if there idea already has been mentioned then they can just support it or expand on it in there category.
-If there idea does not have a catagory:If there idea does not have a category then they can create a new category for there idea. Also, If subcategories are allowed as well to allow forking, that would be helpful as well I think this would avoid overwhelming duplication.
-Notify me at my talk page Im only allowed to monitor my talk page only. If there is any activity please let me know on my talk page where it says talk in the next line.
67.160.137.69 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like it would lead to substantial work and strain on the database. At the moment we're looking at 2 million or more monthly pieces of feedback when this racks up to 100 percent; having near-infinite possibilities for categories...ech. not good. We're also at "feature freeze"; we're not adding new components for the time being. If and when this changes I'll bring this idea up with the devs, but I think it unlikely. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Blank feedback

Firstly let me say, this is a great idea. Secondly, would it be possible to filter out blank submissions (that is no feedback given) as there are quite a few of these. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; that should be happening by default. Can you send me a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, its not. Even I am seeing lots of them. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Filters not working for me

Whenever I try to filter feedback on Special:ArticleFeedbackv5, it doesn't work. I open the menu, click on, say, "Flagged as abuse", and the filter still says, "More filters", and the pop-up menu appears on the left side of the screen. I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a MacBook Air. David¹²¹⁷ 20:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Screenshot? :). okeyeswikimedia.org. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's working now... I was having the same problem as Jesse V. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; could be a bug fixed in the last deployment. Let me know if it reappears :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved button

Although mentioned there is no resolved button/link on most of the entries. The resolved only seems to appear if the post is featured. Also perhaps we need a no action required button, or an action required or desirable, to further sort the responses into ones that are worth looking at again by different groups of users here. In addition to abuse, perhaps there could be a praise marking, since there is a fair bit of that here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas all :). I'll bring them up! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving

Hey guys. So, in about 5 hours I'm jumping in a van and moving all my shit (or "shite", I need to practise) to Cardiff - a city apparently referred to as "the diff". Clearly it was built for Wikimedians!

Although awesome for me, this does mean I'm not going to have unfettered internet access until thursday - I'll be relying on a MiFi unit with 5 gigs of data and trying desperately not to exhaust it. So if I'm slow to respond, this is why :). 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC) (Okeyes (WMF) (talk))

Pob lwc! benzband (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for a new section!

Writing the feedback may take a lot of time and hence some readers may avoid it. So, we can have a shorter version of it by asking readers instead to suggest a section that should be added to the article in their opinion. For example, if an article related to a city does not have a section 'Geography', then the reader can suggest that this section be added to the article. It will also help editors as writing full feedback would involve asking for user-specific information (information that only one user is looking for) which is very difficult to find and may not be very useful. But if a new section is suggested, editors can search more broadly. Please give your opinion. Thanks and regards, Vishal14K | Talk 03:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, is there any reason why readers can't use the feedback tool to say "could you add some information about this city's geography"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Informing readers about Wikipedia

I think while asking readers about feedback, we can also display one or two lines about things on Wikipedia thus educating readers about them. Most of the users read only articles and know nothing about WIkiprojects, Portals, Templates, etc. So, we can add a few lines such as 'Do you know what is a portal?' or 'Have you ever used a portal on Wikipedia?' and then inform the reader about them in the next 2-3 lines with examples. Waiting for opinion from others! Thanks and regards, Vishal14K | Talk 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We could; the problem is twofold. The first is that this distracts from the actual goal of the tool (getting readers to participate actively to improve article content). The second is, well, I'm not sure if most readers even want to be educated about Wikipedia. We've found that the more steps we stick into the tool, the fewer people make it through to the end, and that's when the steps are immediately relevant. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiding feedback in Special:Contributions filtered by new accounts

Is there any way of hiding feedback from Special:Contributions when it's filtered by new accounts (this) without having to disable searching for anything in the Wikipedia namespace? NtheP (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. How exactly does this related to AFT5? Jesse V. (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the results submitted by people using the feedback tool show in Special:Contributions and if possible I'd like to ignore them. NtheP (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, I'm afraid :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-( NtheP (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

uhhhm, this is a simple global CSS hack to hide it from pages (like WP:* or Special:*). mabdul 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

what is? Should "this" have linked to something? NtheP (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Mabdul is proposing creating a script you can stick in your CSS file to hide them :). I'm talking him through how to find the code for the extension now, so he knows what to include in the script. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't link to anything. OK, then let's have a look.

.mw-special div[class*="articleFeedbackv5"] { display: none; }
.mw-wikipedia div[class*="articleFeedbackv5"] { display: none; }

I would test it (and correct it of course) with my public account if somebody can give me some example pages (WP/WT/Special and everything which should be hidden). (I doubt that this is enough and works). mabdul 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Try Special:Contributions/69.111.142.228 (picked out of the logs). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Have the 2 schedule stages been completed?

According to the schedule, on 26th June final release was to be done and on July the 3rd AFTv5 was to be deployed to 10% of enwiki. Have these stages been done? Nikolay95 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Alas, not yet :(. I'll update the schedule now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't been following the roll-out of this tool for several months, but I noticed it's recently appeared on more pages. Can someone link me to the "schedule" so I can update myself on the recent roll-out and plans for upcoming implementation? Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Schedule (I really, really need to expand on this; adding it to today's to-do list). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just on that page last night, but somehow missed the schedule at the bottom of the page. I have no idea how I missed it, other than the fact that I think I tend to glaze over whenever I land on these type of project pages. lol. Anyway, I see the schedule now. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Love the tool!

I just noticed this on the Higgs boson article that I'm working on right now - it's absolutely amazing! Many thanks to all those involved in the development. I just had a question (which has possibly been answered before): once this tool is fully deployed, how are we going to decide which articles get it? can an editor ask for the feedback tool on a particular article? Also, I think the actual feedback page can be improved a bit readability-wise, but that's a minor point. Cheers, SPat ^talk 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Full deployment means full deployment; every article gets it :). We are looking at ways to build in turning it off, as well - obviously there are going to be circumstances where you want it disabled. What are your readability suggestions? Always willing to listen! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, so according to the calendar, july 16 is the date for something like a "beta" release? As for readability: for long comments, it's a little bit annoying to go to a separate page to see the details. Is it possible to make the "More" button slide down to show expanded version? (like how Facebook does it for comments) Also, maybe we could make the question prompt ("How could this article be improved?") more prominent, as I saw a few comments which seemed like they were unsure as to what we expect in the feedback. Thanks! SPat ^talk 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed this. I think it is a great tool, and the sooner it is deployed throughout the whole of Wikipedia the better. Good work. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I expected the post to expand when I clicked on the "More" button, and was a bit annoyed when I was redirected to a new page. I love the tool though, so much better than version 4. Ulflund (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points! I'll bring them up to the devs tomorrow (tomorrow is my "compile a massive list of proposed tweaks and ship them to the coders" day). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A few suggestions & questions

Hi as I said above I think this is a great tool. I just have a few suggestions:

• Monitors can unmark feedback as abuse - there are a number of feedback items which have been marked as abuse which aren't.
• After a certain time (say 1 month) feedback which has been marked as not helpful (say over 70%) is removed.
• From my comment above. Firstly let me say, this is a great idea. Secondly, would it be possible to filter out blank submissions (that is no feedback given) as there are quite a few of these.

I also have a couple of questions:

• Do the same rules apply to hiding comments as apply to using WP:REVDELETE or are the rules a little less strict?
• Does WP:3RR apply to Central Feedback (eg a featuring and unfeaturing war or a hiding and unhiding war).

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This may have already been answered, but would it be possible to have the "mark as resolved" function available all the time, not just when the feedback is featured. I saw one which was easily fixable so I did, but had to feature it then mark as resolved. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we have to work these out by consensus. Currently hiding happens if enough people click abuse. So it is much easier than revdel. I will hide things for BLP violations, pointless offensiveness (vandalism), or information leak (people giving email addresses or children talking about themselves). I have not yet seen anything looking like a copyright infringement to hide. There is also nonsense, but not nearly as much as I expected. I have not hidden nonsense, just click as unhelpful. I expect we can worry about 3RR when it happens, but in any case it could be counted as disruption to be followed up by warnings or blocks. I asked for resolved button to appear when not featured too, see above somewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On the information leak front - that's the sorta thing that should be OSed as well as hidden (I appreciate you probably already know this; just covering all the bases ;p.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Graeme - but primarily if a monitor hides it :p. Graeme & Okeyes, yeah that's pretty much what I've been doing (to all of what you both said). I've already come across a 3RR around un/feature, but I resolved that pretty quickly and amicably when I saw it happen.

Is there a specific place (other than here) for me to make the suggestions? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Graeme - just had a proper looka at your suggestion above - good idea with more options than just "resolved". Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we (or should we) give users talk page warnings vandalism, BLP violations etc in their feedback? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should modify the Uw-vandalism templates for AFTv5. Same system as vandalism—four warnings, then an AIV report. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that and approve of that idea.—Toccata quarta (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is most definitely a community matter; we aren't stepping in :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I just wanted to comment on the new feedback tool because, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to do anything. I admit, I am totally computer-illiterate, so maybe I'm just using it wrong. Is this tool supposed to be just another talk page? What baffles me is that the tool seems to give no feedback at all. It's just a box with a yes and no button, but, when I look for any feedback, there is none. Does it go to some hidden page or something, or do I need to be an admin to look at it? Perhaps some decent instructions on how to work it would help. (The tool is only on one article I watch, the dye laser article, but I've looked at it on others and still come to the same conclusion.)

Personally, I like the older tool. It may or may not be good for getting readers involved, I don't know. What I do know is that, as a writer, it gives me a good feeling to see an article I have expanded begin to get better and better ratings. Seeing that makes me want to stick around and help out on more articles. The older tool was a nice contrast to the talk pages, which can often be kind of a downer to one's self-esteem, listing only problems for the most part. I think that, in designing this new tool, it might be helpful to consider the impact the old one had in retaining good editors and writers as well as focusing on getting new ones involved. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I hope it's helpful. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking on the yes/no? I think they're testing a new version which has the feedback form on a page accessed by clicking one of those options. And just your opinion or not, it is helpful; I'll try to write a more sensical reply to it soon - about to jump on a plane :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no I didn't. I never rate my own articles. I just tried the blue link on the right hand side, and searched around for those hidden, Zelda-style links. Thanks for the response, though. I actually think it'd be helpful to maybe incorporate the old into the new or something, but, like I said, I know nothing about computers nor how difficult that would be. Thanks again. Zaereth (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll talk to the devs :). I understand that switching to this model may have improved quality, which is a good thing, but I'll see what the precise data says. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

e-mail address

For some reason people often add their e-mail address - this always leads to oversight (happens a lot). Is it possible to disallow e-mail addresses in the feedback (I remember there being a tag whenever someone adds their e-mail address to article space?) Thanks CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we could; this is something for the edit filter managers to decide, though :). We want to encourage editors to curate the AbuseFilter, firstly for legal reasons (we can't set up too many automated rules or we risk becoming a publisher) and secondly because, well, it'd be stepping on toes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suspect this is probably within the purview of the Abuse Filter. If we're happy w/ the performance on the email regex in article space it might make sense to do it here. I'm no longer a filter editor but if this seems like something people here (as in on this talk page) want to do, I'll talk to an editor w/ those powers. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning users

Whenever a user hides a feedback post, could a warning be placed automatically on the talk page of the user who posted the feedback? There would be of course an option to not add a warning. When AFTv5 eventually goes live on every page, there will be so much inappropriate feedback that it would improper to warn each user, even using something like Twinkle. A set of templates could be developed by someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I think this is a great idea and I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 user warnings asking someone to come up with draft versions. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc! David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support I asked IronHolds about possible blocks for repeat offenders, too. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but with a concern My main problem with the idea is that there could be a conflict between templates. For instance, if somebody vandalises an article and gets a level 1 warning, it's not possible—or at least pointless—to send the person another level 1 warning, but about feedback, in case he proceeds to misuse it. Moreover, a level 2 warning stating something like "Please stop abusing the feedback function" would make no sense in such a context. So I maintain that the vandalism templates should be formulated differently to encompass feedback abuse.—Toccata quarta (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Toccata quarta I'm not exactly sure what you're saying (though it's probably me) but vandalising an article and abusing the feedback tool are different things and you would recieve different warnings about it. My suggestion would be that when issuing warnings it work the same as Huggle (Huggle won't warn if there has been no edit since the last warning). My purpose of asking WikiProject User Warnings to design AFTv5 specific templates is so that it is clear what (and where on the Wiki) the editor has done wrong especially since the feedback will be hidden so that the offender won't be able to see it. Does this answer your problem? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My idea is fairly simple. The vandalism templates could be reworded so as to encompass the abuse of the feedback function. Hence

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

could become

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to participate, at least one of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted, removed or flagged for abuse. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The person making unconstructive contributions would be informed what is constructive contributing (by means of being directed to the welcome page). So there should be no need for a new template, in my humble opinion.—Toccata quarta (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By rewording them we have to make new templates. Thanks for the wording - it's pretty much what I had in mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I get you; do you propose creating new templates, or changing the already existing ones? Template:Uw-vandalism1 says the following:

This template is used by the standard installation of Twinkle. If you are planning to make major changes to this template or nominate it for deletion, please notify Twinkle's user base and maintainers at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle as a courtesy.

On the basis of that I'd say there's nothing insurmountable standing in the way of such a change.—Toccata quarta (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We would be creating new templates but basing them off the current wording. Or at least I guess that is has User:Electriccatfish2 has in mind. It would be bettwe not to change the current ones already being used as this could cause major disruption and would make them less useful for everyone else - plus it would mean going through quite a long process to get the general community's approval. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually "conflict between templates" sometimes when warning users, so I think we should develop a separate set of templates. However, I would be fine with modifying the Uw-vandalism templates. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Electriccatfish2. Dan653 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a sensible idea. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sure! (per electric) Theopolisme _{TALK 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}
• Support per all the supports above CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Has anyone mentioned the proposed new warnings that are very likely (IMHO) to replace the current set (see the RfC)? A one-size-fits-all warning seems unhelpful to me because there will obviously be a very wide of abuse. MediaWiki should maintain a field for each user that records how many feedbacks have been hidden, with an automatic reset after a month, then disallow more feedback once a threshold is reached. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Your idea about hiding feedback is a good idea. On your point that "A one-size-fits-all warning seems unhelpful to me", I think that a separate set of warnings should be developed for AFTv5 abuse. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I may have missed something, but I think the original proposal is to have an automatic warning (user clicks "hide", system hides and warns its author). My point is that there is no one warning that would cover a completely off-topic ramble (a potentially useful editor) and a BLP attack (very unlikely to be a useful editor). Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed Dan653 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I thought you meant by "A one-size-fits-all warning seems unhelpful to me", you meant that using the Uw-vandalism templates would be unhelpful, since that's what another editor had suggested. I realize what you really intended your comment to be now. Well, I suppose we could word the level-one templates softly, and then make subsequent ones harder (like what they're doing with the other level-one templates). I also like your idea about locking users out, but I'm wondering about dynamic IPs. David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support It also makes it easier to identify vandals who are abusing the hide feedback button. If people keep being notified that their legitimate feedback is being hidden, they will start asking questions. :) Of course, it's important to both link to the feedback in question, as well as the user who hid it. Jesse V. (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I believe only sysops, reviewers, and rollbackers (plus some other obscure user groups) can hide feedback, so I don't think there will be many vandals improperly hiding feedback. David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes only sysops, reviewers, and rollbackers can hide feedback; and remember it is very easy for sysops to remove review & rollback rights from an account which abuses them - so that shouldn't be a problem (and if it was it would be the same as it is now with incorrect undos and rollbacks in main space). User:Jesse V. - the user who has had their feedback hidden will not be able to see it (as it's hidden), so the warning will have to be a general unconstructive feedback rather than this feedback; and the user who hid it will be the one who's signature is on the warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Guys, I'll look into building this, but I'm not sure when it'll be done :(. We've hit "feature freeze" - we've got a choice between adding new features and making sure it doesn't break the wiki when it goes to 100 percent, and so we're doing the latter :). But I know Fabrice has plans to make a second run of design in a few months: I'll find out the details and get back to you. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe for now we can warn them semi-automatically using Twinkle or something. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but we first need to create the templates. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Callanecc left a message at WikiProject user warnings. David1217 ^{What I've done} 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started to create them at User:Callanecc/sandbox/AFT5, feel free to leave comments on the talk page User talk:Callanecc/sandbox/AFT5. If you want to help work on them please let me know (shouldn't be a problem I'd just like to know first). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, since we aren't getting any response from WikiProject user warnings. I might help a bit with them. David1217 ^{What I've done} 14:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free, see message at their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• You guys might want to speak to Maryana or Swalling on the template front? They and a load of editors have been doing some kickass work on making warning templates effective - might be able to provide some hints :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the shout-out Oliver. Per the note from you and Callanecc, Maryana and I are going to take a crack at writing these warnings in line with the style that testing suggested is best. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Automation I'm all for making it easy to warn editors abusing the feedback system, but an automated warning just because feedback was hidden is a bad idea. It should remain possible to hide feedback without issuing any warnings, and leave warnings up to the hider as the circumstances warrant. At the very least it should default to not warning, as we get too many template warnings being issued without real thought. Monty₈₄₅ 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, my opinion has always been that it should be a box to tick (which defaults to off) when hiding. Feel free to have a look at the user warnings we've come up with, level 1 is quite explanatory. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Watching and deleting comments

This is extremely open to abuse, I understand the need for an initiative to flatten out the oh shit graph, but this currently isn't it. What you're mostly doing is extending an invitation to trolls to provide "feedback", I jsut went through all the feedback on an article I edit regularly and found one useful comment in about 300. The rest were mostly along the lines of "penis" or "buttsex", aside from a few which would be normally deleted as personal attacks or libel if posted on a talk page, except.. I can't seem to delete them, even as an admin, only "flag as abuse", "hide", which presumably means everyone else can still see it, or "request oversight". Sysops should absolutely be given the power to remove these comments if they are purely disruptive, under similar criteria to the revision deletion ones.

What's more, there's no way to add these pages to a watchlist. It's hard enough for us all to watch articles and talk pages to keep them clear of copyright violations, libellious material, BLP violations, vandalism and shit, and now we have to watch this as well. There should be a way of "new feedback posted" coming up on our watchlist when new feedback is posted about an article so that we can read it asap (on the off chance that the feedback is actually useful) or delete it or report it to an admin if it's abusive.

With those two changes, thereby getting enough people actually patrolling the tool, it might end up being useful. - filelakeshoe 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Monitors (admins, reviewers and rollbackers) can hide comments (pretty much RevDelete), on the right hand side of the feedback there is a list of functions one of which is "Hide this comment" - this makes it viewable only to monitors. Have a look at this page for moe info: Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors. Regarding watching a particular article's feedback, you can't "watchlist" (as with any other "Special" page) it but going to this page will do a pretty good job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Justin_Bieber (obviously replacing "Justin Bieber" the article you want to watch). The best way to watch what is comming in is here, which shows everything. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What Callanecc said :). If hiding meant everyone else could see it, it, er, wouldn't be hiding ;p. The watchlist functionality is a great idea I've heard brought up - we should definitely discuss it at our end and try to include it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough - maybe I was confused because it looked a bit too much like Youtube) Just read the discussion above so hiding is clear. I wonder if the feedback could appear on a watchlist via a log, or if there could be a "watched pages" option on the central tool page. - filelakeshoe 11:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeedy; I'm loathe to do it as talkpages are (with them watched automatically if you watch the associated article page?) because I think that'd cause a load of problems. Nobody wants 900 feedback pages as well as their other stuff. But I'll see what we can do with independent watchlisting. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okeyes what about a possible watchlist function on the Justin Bieber example - then it's only the one page. Obviously I don't know the 'behind the scences' stuff (that is whether it's possible). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A grand idea; I've brought it up with the devs :). I can't promise it immediately, as it's quite a large undertaking (because the AFT5 pages are special pages, and we really don't want it interlinked with the watchlist function for each article). But we're talking through possible ways to get something like this in place as soon as is possible. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely rethinking the feedback function?

In light of the thread above this one, I have decided to propose a substantial alteration of the feedback function—one that occurred to me several days ago. When somebody offers feedback stating "Thank you, I found what I was looking for", nothing is gained from it; at best, it will make a few editors happy. Moreover, the amount of feedback that Wikipedia is supposed to be receiving in the near future will allegedly be the same as the amount of edits it gets on average every day.

However, this number could be substantially reduced by changing the feedback box from

"Did you find what you were looking for? Yes No"

to

"Do you think this article lacks important information or could otherwise be improved? If so, please let us know!"

As I said before, positive feedback, while pleasant for some, does not assist in improving articles and only consumes space.—Toccata quarta (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they did some research and found that the design they're using now works best. Also, Okeyes (who is the person for this) said that they're not adding any more features for a few months. David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but I have a hard time believing we are benefiting from congratulatory feedback.—Toccata quarta (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would. As the primary editor of the Folding@home article, I appreciate congratulatory feedback. We are volunteers, so that's about as much as we get in return. Still, constructive feedback would be better. I'm still waiting for AFT5 to show up on that article though... Jesse V. (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Positive feedback does not usually help to improve a given article, but it can give the people who wrote the article a feeling of encouragement, and it also can give the person who leaves feedback a warm feeling toward Wikipedia. So it is not worthless. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A lack of positive feedback and communications has actually been repeatedly pointed to as one of the reasons there isn't really much of an incentive for quite a few people to stay around. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Flag as abuse"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T40497

It seems like when I flag feedback as abuse on a feedback subpage (for example, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Facebook), the flag does not show up on my log page. However, when I flag the feedback as abuse on the main special page (Special:ArticleFeedbackv5) it shows up. I'm not sure if you guys know about it already or if it has been said already, but I'd thought I'd share it. -- Luke (Talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shows up both times for me—I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on Mac OS X 10.6.8 on a MacBook Air. What about you? David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 13.0.1 on a Mac OS X 10.5.8, MacBook Pro. -- Luke (Talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By "my log page", I assume you mean the "logs" link in the sidebar of your userpage. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. -- Luke (Talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess Okeyes will file a bug when he comes around. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I cannot hide posts, request oversight, like or dislike the feedback, or feature the post. -- Luke (Talk) 02:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait—you can't do any actions with the feedback, or the actions don't show up in your user log? David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't do any feedback functions on any feedback subpage. It works on Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 and it logs my actions. -- Luke (Talk) 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, still works for me (it logs too). David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried it on Safari and it doesn't work on subpages too. -- Luke (Talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Luk3 :). As far as I'm aware it's a new bug; I'll shove it in Bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Any chance you could email me compare-and-contrast screenshots? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

E-mailed. -- Luke (Talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Now tracking on Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Accidently flag this as a abuse. I now see that it's an irreversible action. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  Sort-of :(. We're actively discussing ways to eliminate or void flags - we'll see what happens. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiding stuff

Is it like revision deletion or like undoing edits? Also, I want mouse-over explanations of what all the things do. I demands it, or something, except for the fact that I'm not sure I have any right to demand anything, or even necessarily care. Hi? Hi. How are you? -— Isarra ༆ 18:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's like RevDeleting it—only admins, rollbackers, and reviewers (plus some other specialized AFTv5 groups) can see it. As for explanations, these two pages may help. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As David said, this page will provide more information about the functions you have (as a rollbacker): Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 02:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

+1 :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting way to go about things, but on the other hand, most of the feedback is really just useless. Ratings are all very well and fine, and nice ones are indeed quite lovely if it happens to be an article one has worked on, but only the more specific comments are all that useful useful when looking to actually work on an article from the feedback, so if hiding is like deletion, perhaps there should be another button for the just useless but not disruptive stuff, not necessarily to remove it, but to allow it to be sorted out when need be? Because this is all like eeEEAAuuugh currently. So much stuff everywhere and all over the place and who knows how even to get through it all, or what to do with it, or find the right page to say what is what... there are way too many pages about this thing. Geep. -— Isarra ༆ 02:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Isarra, there is the option to mark feedback as unhelpful/helpful and useful feedback should be Featured

So featuring isn't just special stuff, but all of the generally useful? Then why is there a helpful thing at all? And if the unhelpful thing automatically hides the feedback once smacked enough, why can't we just hide it immediately? I don't get it. -— Isarra ༆ 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is marked as abuse a number of times it is automatically hidden, if it is marked as unhelpful then it is just marked as unhelpful (and thr same with marking as helpful). If there are specific details on what to improve in the article (which you believe to be true and useful) you Feature. If it is helpful or only generally helpful (such as "more images please") mark it as helpful (but don't feature as it isn't specific). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what is abuse? And how are we supposed to know any of this? And don't say to go read the documentation; there's too much of it and all of it I looked at was terrible. Assuming I looked at any of it; a good design doesn't require any documentation. -— Isarra ༆ 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are several discussions attempting to develop guidance on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines, most recently the Hide none actionable comments? section. Monty₈₄₅ 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't need guidance at all. That's the problem. -— Isarra ༆ 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to file the tooltips bug, Isarra :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark as Resolved at Central Feedback Page

Hello,

I am trying to mark a feedback post as resolved, but unfortunately it requires that I mark it as featured before I do so. I am not sure if this is intentional or if it is a bug, but if it is intentional, please note that some feedback does not constitute "specific tips and detailed ways to improve an article", as is required for it to be featured, but can still be resolved. Thanks, Gold Standard 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that it's on purpose. David1217 ^{What I've done} 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we have suggested this somewhere above, it's in the pipeline for the next version/update. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 02:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated flagging as abuse

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T40460

It seems that the software is configured to be overly zealous in marking feedback as abuse, for example [1]. It would be more helpful if the automatic abuse flagging was more selective and targeted at things like WP:BLP violations or other feedback that there is urgency to remove. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to decline an abuse report, for a case where the feedback is clearly not abuse? Monty₈₄₅ 15:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure, although I'd like to know that too. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is doing the automatic flagging? Is it an edit filter? Which ones? If so we need to change some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All it says is "Auto-flagged by Article Feedback V5 10 hours ago", with a link to Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5/Help that doesn't mention the functionality. I had presumed it was a feature of the feedback system, is the edit filter able to interact with feedback like that? Monty₈₄₅ 22:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's several edit filters: 458, 460, 461, 463, 472, 473, and 474. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, any edit filter managers are welcome to tweak things :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest switching 458 to not autoflag, that one seems to be generating the most false positives. Also, for future development, it would be useful if the filter triggering the automated flagging was recorded with the feedback. Monty₈₄₅ 16:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Really great point; I'll add it to the bugzilla list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes please drop 458 as flagging abuse. Also when we look at the details of abuse say at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=472 and then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/7149099, it would be good to get a link to the feedback page so that we can quickly hide base on filter results, and not just abuse flagging. Then we could get filters that do nothing apart from list in the filter log, but yet may need extra checking. For the email buster http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=463 we could then quickly request oversight. Also there could be a filter for phone numbers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So on the details of abuse front; instead of, for example, " performing the action "feedback" on Stephen King" it would provide a link to the actual problematic post? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the quietness!

Hey guys

Sorry for the delay; I'm just on my way home from Wikimania now :). I should land in London at about 9am BST Tuesday, and be home to Cardiff before the US west coast wakes up (albeit only just). Once that happens, I'm going to work through the discussion backlog and start forwarding things to the relevant staffers as fast as possible :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Guidelines for Monitors

I have recently initiated an RFC to draft guidelines for those monitoring Feedback. Your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines. Monty₈₄₅ 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nav Bar

I'm working on the above navbar to help navigate AFT related pages as there are a bunch of subpages and its not always easy to find links to the right one. Any comments/improvements would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 23:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, that will certainly improve ease of navigation. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Like It'll make it easier for other reviewers, myself included, to get around easier. -- Luke (Talk) 02:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like as well. Very nice! Jesse V. (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like the fact that we're all going to get killed by a mob for using pseudo-facebook templates. Also the navbar is great :D. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Very cool, thank you, Monty845! Excellent idea. I added a couple more links, and arranged similar items closer to each other, using consistent terminology. Great improvement, much appreciated! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Most relevant requests?

Could there please be a sort option for the most relevant comments from people who didn't find what they were looking for? You can leave the frowny faces off that, if possible, please. I already know wikipedians are spectacular, and while it's great to have statistics quantifying exactly how spectacular, I don't need to see the majority of feedback reminding me all the time, especially if I'm just browsing for improvement ideas. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So, two filters, then? Most relevant+not including happy people? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, am I missing how to do that? I can't see how to remove the (~88%) happy responses. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not sure if it's possible :S. I'll talk to people! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind many of the happy face comments do also offer suggestions for improvement. The percentage is definitely less though. Dcoetzee 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Feedback Box Visibility

Hi All. I think the feedback tool works great but that too few readers even notice it, especially on longer articles. I think very few readers would even think to scroll all the way to the bottom, past sometimes 200+ references, navboxes, external links, etc. to provide feedback. I know the floating "Improve this page!" box was not popular, but there must be another way to make the tool more visible. Perhaps at the top of the page there could be a "Help improve this page" that would anchor to the end of the page, similar to the "View Reader Feedback" link on the talk page. I know that asking for feedback at the start of the page seems counter-intuitive, since readers will not yet have read the article, but there has to be some way to advertise the feedback tool. Thanks for all your hard work on this. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We've actually tried experimenting with things like this. The amount of feedback which came in was overwhelming - we're looking for 1.6-2 million posts a month after full deployment just using the bottom widget. So more prominent placement could cause a lot of volume issues, both technically and socially :(. It was an idea we put a lot of effort into testing, however. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the technical limitations, but keeping the feedback tool hidden from view is contrary to the stated goals to encourage readers to help improve articles. On one hand we want their help, but then obscure ways for them to provide it. I live in Washington and government bureaucrats couldn't have invented a better system to simultaneously invite and obscure public comments! -epicAdam^(talk) 16:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not about technical limitations - it's "last time we added a tab near the top of the article that linked to it we got so much feedback that, if we used such a system on all articles (and we plan to release to all articles), we'd be getting 3.3 million pieces of feedback a month". We've only got 80,000 editors, optimistically; I don't think we can expect them to review all or even most of the feedback, and it seems disingenuous to deliberately make it more prominent for readers if we know that the feedback most likely won't get handled. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"I live in Washington and government bureaucrats couldn't have invented a better system to simultaneously invite and obscure public comments" I find that rather hard to believe (the latter!). I mean in general we kinda have to think through this. What does a persistent feedback template at the top of the page signify? What does it allow? For me it indicates that we don't want people to actually read the article before commenting. As for a floating element, the community would riot (and I would join in) if we crapped up wikipedia pages with floating boxes which moved as you scrolled. More generally, I'm not sure how worried we should be if not all readers see the feedback page. Not all readers want to give feedback (with or without the page)! Not all readers read the whole page and that's probably ok. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"View activity"

On each piece of feedback, there's a line that says "view activity". The link doesn't work, and it seems like it should. However, when I click "Details", it shows "Activity (1 action) There has been no activity on this post" even though it also says that someone marked it as helpful. Is this supposed to happen? Windows 7 64-bit, latest version of Chrome. Jesse V. (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

When I view feedback, that button tells me who performed an action. If I view the same feedback while logged out, the button isn't even there. It may be that information is restricted to editors with the ability to hide feedback (admin/rollback/reviewer), but that is just a guess. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting because I was logged in. The documentation says that some of the controls are hidden from readers but shown to editors. Jesse V. (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a bug to do with actions not showing - hopefully it'll be dealt with soon. I have a check-in with the team both tomorrow and next monday, and will raise this issue. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking the same feedback unhelpful multiple times

Without noticing that I was also the previous editor to mark the feedback unhelpful, I marked Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Annie_John/168500 uhelpful a second time. It appears to count my second marking as if it was from another editor, though the log reveals it was me both times. Is it intended functionality to allow repeated marking by the same person? Monty₈₄₅ 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh. Definitely not! I'll ask the devs what's going on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you click it enough times it should automatically hide it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what "mark as abuse" is for. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't add pages to watchlist

I can't see anyway of monitoring specific or groups of pages for example via a watchlist. This is a managability problem longer term as feedback won't get seen by those that are most interested to see the feedback. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I will second this. I will have no idea if someone leaves feedback about my articles unless they appear on my watchlist. I can't just manually go to all my articles' feedback pages to check up on their status. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! We have had many requests for this feature, and are considering making it available for this release, either integrated within the watchlist page, or as a separate version of the central feedback page, personalized to only show feedback for articles in your watchlist. We are now estimating the development required to see if we can squeeze it in for this release. Stay tuned, and thanks again for your suggestion! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be an option on user watchlists to pull up feedback on pages that you have on your watchlist, Sadads (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Location of link to an article's feedback

I love the new feedback, but it is a little bit of a hassle to have to click through to the talk page to be able to click to the feedback page. It would be very helpful to have a link to the feedback page on the main article, perhaps only for logged in users or those with a special setting. It could be at the top of the page or on the bottom next to the feedback box. Currently a link to feedback only appears after you leave a comment, but I want to quickly link to it from the article without having to do so. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and good suggestion, Reywas92! We initially wanted to remain discrete about the feedback page link, until we see that editors are using it regularly. Once we can confirm that it is used widely, we would certainly be open to making that feedback page link more prominent by adding it to the article pages themselves. But space is very limited on the article pages, so we'd have to find an appropriate location for it that is not distracting to other users. We'd love suggestions on where to place it, when the time comes. There is some room for a small text link right under the article title, which we have experimented with before, but it didn't get noticed much. Though that may be OK for your purposes. Let's continue that discussion as we keep learning how this tool is being used by the community. Cheers Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would place it next to the "view history" link. Ulflund (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it would be more appropriate to place it to the right of the Talk tab. Jesse V. (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's my feeling. On Vector, at least, things are grouped by their purpose. You get "page" and "talk" which are links to distinct places, and "edit" "history" "watchlist", which are actions or links to metadata. AFT5 is a distinct page - I'd put it with the others. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't mark a feedback item resolved until you feature it

The resolved option does NOT show until an feedback item is featured. Took me a while to fathom out what was different. Having to feature before you could resolve seems like a bug. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, SunCreator. The reason we kept 'Mark as Resolved' under 'Feature this post' was that we didn't want to create more work for editors. We were worried that if we put it up at a higher level, editors would feel compelled to use it all the time, which might increase their workload. So we settled for this solution as a compromise. However, if we find that folks really prefer that tool to be separated from the 'Feature' tool, it may be possible for us to do this later on. Let's observe how it is being used, and make a decision about this in coming weeks. Sound good? And thanks so much for leaving such a nice note on my profile, SunCreator. That was very thoughtful of you, and is much appreciated! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'm glad it operation was intentional, it just wasn't as I expected. And yes, observing it for a few weeks is fine with me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What articles are covered by the feedback tool?

I noticed some article have a hidden categories such as Category:Article Feedback 5 and Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles, but there are some articles with the feedback tool in addition to such categories. For example Adwaita has the feedback => Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Adwaita. So, what articles are covered by the feedback tool? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked, SunCreator. We are in the middle of a gradual deployment of Article feedback v5 on the English Encyclopedia. Right now, AFT5 is only enabled on 5% of articles, plus the two hidden categories you cited. Next week, we'll bump up to 10%, then do some code re-factoring and scaleability work to prepare for 100% release in September.

In the meantime, you are welcome to add Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles to articles that you'd like feedback on. This will add a feedback form at the bottom of your articles, with a corresponding feedback page where you can see all reader comments. To view it, go to the article talk page, then click 'Reader feedback'.

The rest of the articles are part of a lottery system which enables Article feedback based on the last few digits of the article ID. Each week, we increase the percentage of possible lottery winners, and will be going from 10% to 100% in the next couple months.

It's an exciting time for us, to finally be able to bring you this new tool, after months of development. We hope that this will help editors make better articles -- and give readers a voice in Wikipedia. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Adding to Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles shortly! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Um, it's interesting, but (sorry) what exactly does this do? Who uses the data? Is it possible to respond to someone? TheSilentJay (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We use the data. About 1% of the people commenting will demonstrate the capacity for intelligent thought and suggest something meaningful. Then we can make those changes to the article. Specs112 t c 12:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually we found in testing that 40 percent plus of feedback was useful (it depends on the metric you use - anywhere between 40 and 60). The idea is that this feedback will be useful to editors, who can incorporate it into articles (or, if it isn't useful, scrub it). Wikipedia:Feedback walkthrough may be useful :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I made up/exaggerated 1% based on my personal experience of handling feedback. Specs112 t c 15:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1% is roughly the percentage of feedback which if acted upon could transform an article. But the 40% figure seems like a reasonable approximation of feedback which either suggests some sort of improvement, or raises a valid point. And even if those figures are wildly optimistic, the more time unconstructive editors spend trying to undermine the feedback system, the less time they are spending on vandalising article space. —WFC— 01:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove the oversight requested and oversight denied filters?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines § Remove the oversight requested and oversight denied filters?

After playing with the feedback tool for 3 minutes I realized I can filter for oversight requested and oversight denied. These comments are hidden, but still available for any rollbacker to view. This is completely different from the way oversight is handled through the rest of the encyclopedia. Please remove these filters or make them avaiable to oversighters only. Yoenit (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Above copied from the Guidelines tak page (see link).

No it's exactly the same of Overight within Wikipedia. As with anything if Oversight has been requested but not yet granted the material continues to be displyed, but there might be an argument to remove the filter (but not the actual feedback item). If Oversight is declined then there is no reason to have it anything more than hidden (and available to Monitors). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure; I think what Yoenit means is that it isn't standard for me, as a non-oversighter, to be able to pull up a list exclusively containing "things people think are problematic". I agree this is a problem, but iirc it's going to be a bit difficult to fix - I'll ask again and see what the reply is. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Being able to see the declined oversight requests is useful, it that it educates reviewer as to what oversighters are rejecting, and hopefully will result in fewer unecessary oversight requests. I could understand restricting the ability to filter for pending requests to those with oversight though. Monty₈₄₅ 16:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(That's what I meant - sorry should have been clearer). On removing access to the filter I don't think it's that important, if we can't trust the monitors not to use or disclose (etc) any of the info then can we trust them to monitor it at all. Plus most of the feedback which has had Oversight requested is recent so you would quite easily come across it if going through the recent hidings. I think the most effective way to do it, would be that requesting Oversight effectively oversights it until an Oversighter declines the request (at which stage it goes back to being just hidden). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That would work, though it remains unclear to me why hiding the filter group to a certain set of users would not be easier (no idea about the code behind this filter). I disagree with Monty about the declined requests though. That group contains a lot of borderline cases: material that is bad, but just falls short of the oversight criteria. Those are not comments you want to focus attention on, even for educational reason. The whole reason oversight handles everything by email rather than an ANI style board is to avoid drawing attention to potential oversight issues. The amount of damage or harm that can come from such a "bad" comment is directly proportional to the amount of attention it receives. Yoenit (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• It seems like a no-brainer to me that if we (i.e. the WMF, or the functionaries, or whatever) have evidence that there is privacy-related info being made public, we have a responsibility to remove it from view - or at least, make it not-simple to find - until it's been evaluated. Currently for non-AFT oversights, a user sends in a request privately to the Oversight queue, so we're alerted to it but the rest of the community isn't given a giant pointer to "HERE IS WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT BE BEING OUTED!!" or whatever. In this AFT implementation, a user sends in a request publicly, and anyone who wants to can go view the "oversight requested" filter to see all the juicy bits before they're suppressed. Seems problematic to me; a more reasonable implementation would be to either auto-hide any OS-requested feedback pending OSer evaluation of it (when we review it, we can oversight, decline oversight, hide, and undo hiding, iirc, so a temporary hide-pending-review is perfectly reversable), or if that's too extreme, to at least not put the OS-requested feedback in a category that identifies it as possibly-privacy-related to all and sundry. Declined oversight requests, rather than being singled out into a category, ought to just go back into the regular feedback pool, to address the same problem of "Oh hey look, something someone thought was juicy!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading my comment, I think that when I use "auto-hide" here, I actually meant something like "auto-temporary-OS" - a level at which reviewers can't see it. Which sounds a lot weirder and hardcore-r. I'll settle for not putting requested OSes into a "here's the juice!" category. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points all :). I'm actively discussing it with the team - hiding these things was my preferred option, too. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty; added to the to-do list :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What's this, Learn more link

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T40483

Hi. Currently on the feedback tool, as displayed at the bottom of an article, if the user clicks on "What's this?" then "Learn more" they are taken to Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Editors which is a bit of an overwhelming wall of text. Instead I think they should be taken to Wikipedia:Article_Feedback which is a more friendly page to land on. Wikipedia:Article_Feedback is the page linked to by the current banner, "Did you know… that there is a new feedback tool for Wikipedia?". --Pelago (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a really great idea! At the time we didn't have the landing page or tutorials or whatnot - I'll talk to the devs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Now tracking; thanks for the suggestion :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unflag

Might it be possible to allow monitors to remove abuse flags for comments which are not problematic. I have seen comments flagged as false positives from the autoflagger, in bad faith by editors, or as good faith mistakes which are not problematic at all. It would be helpful if people could decline these flags, especially as some of them are actually useful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! Strong support. (Especially because of the autoflagger.) David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We could probably add that. Another option we're looking at would have "unhiding" feedback automatically void all flags - would this work, do you think? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so then you'd have to hide the feedback, then unhide it, which would "purge" it of any negative actions? David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You could if you wanted, but the "mark as abuse" tool works as "when something is marked as abuse five times, it is automatically hidden". So you'd then unhide it. Until it's been hidden, well, the abuse flags aren't doing any harm :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. It would still be nice to be able to unflag comments that were helpful, though. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point. I worry about adding too many buttons, really; the interface could become very overwhelming and clogged very fast :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing abuse flags when something is unhidden, certainly. I still think that being able to unflag would be helpful, though. Currently, wrongly flagged comments clog up the flagged comments filter, making it harder for monitors to go through that and hide inappropriate feedback. If flags could be removed, then once a flagged comment was reviewed and deemed acceptable, it wouldn't have to be reviewed by every subsequent monitor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy outlines the advantage of being able to unflag abuse before its hidden well. Ideally every feedback flagged as abuse even once should be reviewed to see if hiding/oversight is justified, but without the ability to unflag there is gonna be duplicated work. Monty₈₄₅ 16:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Really great points; I'll bring them up. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep; a "void flags" button for monitors is right on our to-do list :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lots of stuff is being incorrectly automatically marked as abuse

Such as this, this and this. Shouting or repeat characters. Neither are valid reasons to mark it as abuse. Feedback comments are not going in the articles, with the type of abuse rules that apply there. Many people use capitals just because they are not advanced enough to know how to use lowercase. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above, we should get someone to uncheck the auto flag box on Special:AbuseFilter/458. The repeating characters is trickier, as some are advocating hiding all feedback that doesn't contain intelligible suggestions, and most of the feedback that trips the repeating filter are unintelligible. (The only fully false positives on that one seem to involve periods like .... which could be refined) Monty₈₄₅ 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Repeat characters come in all sorts of valid feedback. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you guys want to have it unchecked, you're free to do so :). Edit filters are a community-managed element for (amongst other things) legal reasons and I won't have any beef if you want to tweak that filter or its settings. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Free to do so? How so. I can't edit any edit filters. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit feedback

What do people think of allowing a group of editors to edit the comments of other users? I've seen a number of feedback comments (such as this) which is helpful but, in its present form, disruptive. Allowing some people to modify the comment would mean that, in this instance, the excessive exclamation marks could be removed without hiding a potentially useful comment. This could be part of the rollback & reviewer monitoring tools, or could be reserved for a smaller group (administrators, for example). It would, of course, require strict policy controls to prevents abuse (a requirement that the meaning is not changed at all, for example). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it opens up a heck of a load of development work. First we have to make it editable and build the UI for that. Then, to prevent abuse, we have to make the edit appear in some sort of dedicated, per-feedback-post page history, with diffs, and in contributions, and.... ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the example given is disruptive. I suggest if this was changed is would be with automation or not at all. Making an edit with the meaning is not changed is sometimes impossible within articles so I doubt it's different here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. Thanks for the replies. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• A better example of where it would be useful to be able to edit feedback is Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Fernando_Colunga/173852. The feedback is clearly good faith, contains useful information, but also contains an email address, which based on our current practice, should be hidden for privacy/anti spam reasons. Being able to redact the email while leaving the rest of the helpful feedback would be the ideal solution. Monty₈₄₅ 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Featurted: Add a note

A note for featured isn't of much use in my view. The feedback must be good to feature it and a note can't be read anyway. Could simplify by removing the note. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it not appear under "view activity"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I now see it does. Still think that a note is unnecessary but never mind. On a related issue the "View activity" is not stats but has a stats icon. Perhaps it could have a more appropriate icon and maybe rename to "view log"? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good point - I'll bring it up with our interaction designers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it's considered too big a dealie to change at this point - which confuses me slightly, but :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I like feedback but my army of android slaves is too busy to search thousands of pages

Have I missed something, or is there no way to know if feedback has been posted for an article other than checking the feedback page for that article? (This is all very well for pages that are being worked on actively, but since the feedback doesn't flag up on an editor's watchlist or appear on the talk page, it effectively removes any chance of an editor responding to a reader's feedback unless the editor is regularly checking the feedback page.) Yomangani^talk 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We're going to be building some watchlist or watchlist-equivalent features as soon as possible :). At the moment, I appreciate it isn't too easy. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass bot-generated feedback cheats

AFT5 allows everyone to post feedback without proving that they are human. This gives a possibility of mass bot feedback cheats. Dear developers, could you consider adding a CAPTCHA check, at least for IPs? Nikolay95 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Risk seems greater that someone would just edit articles with spam, and we don't CAPTCHA that. We can block the IP if when it happens. Monty₈₄₅ 21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed :). There should be a limiter - someone could post bot-feedback, but not above N per minute, and everything gets screened through the spam blacklist. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As a reader button post button was near invisible

I tried posting feedback as a reader. What I found was the post button was so light it took me a while to find it. Maybe it's because I'm using the MonoBook skin, but if not, then feedback will not be posting because the button is almost invisible. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

okay, only an issue on MonoBook skin so not affecting readers. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; sorry to hear there's a problem! I'll see what I can do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really an issue because readers do not use monobook skin. 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs)

% found what they were looking for

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T40643

How come this say 100% when one person said no? Because the no item is flagged as abuse? Shows you that context is everything. Sexing is determining what the gender is of animal, in this case a turtle and perfectly sensible feedback. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely should be looked at. I marked it helpful, if enough people mark it helpful will it override the abuse flag? Just wondering. Monty₈₄₅ 01:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain the flag was added in good faith. I might well have made a similar mistake. —WFC— 23:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; I'll bugzilla it :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Double hyphens

The "What's this" pop-up says "Wikipedia would like to hear what you think of this article. Share your feedback with the editors -- and help improve this page." Can we have an en dash instead of two hyphens, unless it is written with a typewriter, in which case it might not be possible. thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes—the improper use of hyphens extremely irks me. [Starts twitching.] David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh; I'll make an inquiry :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin browser not supported

I'm on my Android smartphone at the moment, using Dolphin HD, Android's most popular browser. When I pull up a feedback page, I get the message " Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser." The page renders just fine, but as soon as it finishes loading, the message appears. I understand that mobile support for Wikipedia is in a bit of a beta state, but it should work on Dolphin. Jesse V. (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't currently support any mobile browsers :). It is on the to-do list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not add an ability to edit your own feedback comments?

It could be useful when you've made a mistake or want to rephrase your comment. But I think that one should be able to do it a limited number of times. --Николай95 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vanishing feedback

Looking at an editor's contributions, I noted that they had given feedback to our article Jesus - when I clicked on the page, the feedback appeared for a second or less then vanished[2]. What's going on? Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not currently a feedback article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It clearly was, see [3] - so I gather its status changed? Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What was particularly confusing was seeing the actual feedback for less than a second! Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Random ramblings

Just want to say that, while there is inevitably a lot of irrelevant feedback (both positive and negative), overall I'm finding this tool a dream.

It has helped be make small but decidedly positive edits such as [4], [5] and [6], action an article which probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines [7], forward things where I have been able to make progress but couldn't find a source for [8], give insight where I think there is something in a comment but don't know enough [9], and in general highlight things that were downright excellent [10].

Things that I think could make it better:

• Split the featured and resolved functions. Sometimes a comment helped me improve Wikipedia, without necessarily being something that anyone would benefit from reading again. On the other hand I have seen some truly excellent feedback, such as the very last link above, which even if resolved I would continue to cite as an example of feedback making a big difference.
• A quicker way of thanking anonymous users for feedback which directly led to an article improvement. It might help convert this tool into productive editors, or simply encourage them to continue to provide feedback, knowing that their efforts are appreciated. I know thank you notes on talk pages are always an option, but the extra time that takes might dissuade people from doing so.
• A way of un-flagging a comment which is unquestionably not abusive.

Sorry about the randomness of this post, but I felt it would be quicker to write off the top of my head than wade through the many sections above. Hopefully some of it helps. —WFC— 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What is great is the concept of getting written feedback from readers(better then the star system). Some feedback like this is awesome as it resulted in the addition of a hatnote that hadn't even been conceived of. The implementation however is buggy and the majorly missing ingredient is the integration with the watchlist. That will be the make or break of it, without an easy way of being alerted of the feedback it will generally be ignored. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed :). WFC, thanks for your comments - I agree with all of them. It remains to be see how many new things we'll be able to fit in, though - the developer team is small :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we'll be working on a way to void non-abusive feedback that has been marked as such; the other stuff will have to wait until our next pass over the software :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Needed functionality, ability to mark items as "read"

Unfortunately none of the pages that I watch are part of the test, as far as I know, so my experience with the new system has been limited, but I can already see that the most important thing for making it usable will be an ability to mark specific items as "read" (by me, individually), and then not have them appear on the feedback page when I look at it. I don't mind looking at a bunch of useless feedback, but I'm probably not going to be using the system if I have to look at the same useless feedback over and over again. I expect that will be a difficult thing to support, but I think it ought to be possible, perhaps with the aid of an external tool. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a note, adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles to any of your pages will give them AFTv5 instantly. David1217 ^{What I've done} 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; this could be a difficult thing to institute. But I'll ask and see what we can do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we don't have time to work on that right now :(. We're prioritising building a watchlist function, voiding poor feedback and making a more prominent link to the feedback page - but we'll be making another pass to add incremental features and fix future bugs in 6-12 months, and I'm going to note this idea down for the discussion then :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Manually adding

Is it ok to manually add an article into this version.B S 00:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe so, just add Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles onto the pages you want. David1217 ^{What I've done} 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#What_articles_are_covered_by_the_feedback_tool.3F. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, i should of looked higher. Thanks again. B S 00:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging help subpages

Currently there are 4 help pages at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help, Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Editors, Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors, and Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Oversighters. There is considerable redundancy between the pages, particularly between the three aimed at autoconfirmed and higher user groups. I propose we merge the 3 pages designed for autoconfirmed and above into one page that contains instructions for all three, with the higher level permission information in sections by permission, perhaps with anchors/redirects. This would preserve one page with simple info for leaving feedback, and through consolidation of the rest into the autoconfirmed+ page, would make it easier to understand the full scheme of tools, would make maintenance of the pages easier, and reduce subpage clutter. Thoughts? Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the moment those pages are linked to through the "help" link on the feedback page, which autodetects what user class you are. So from a user point of view, only one of those pages need exist :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is; people aren't likely to mind there being four because they only see one. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort by most recent action

I would suggest adding an additional sort option to the feedback panel, we currently can sort by most recent feedback, but there is no way to sort by most recent action on a feedback. For instance, it could allow you to see the feedback most recently marked as abuse, without which, a feedback that is several days old (or older) when marked as abuse may escape review. Monty₈₄₅ 05:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a really great idea! I'll throw it at the team :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed a great idea! Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we don't have time to work on that right now :(. We're prioritising building a watchlist function, voiding poor feedback and making a more prominent link to the feedback page - but we'll be making another pass to add incremental features and fix future bugs in 6-12 months, and I'm going to note this idea down for the discussion then :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass bot-generated feedback cheats

Moved from User talk:Utar --22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

AFT5 allows everyone to post feedback without proving that they are human. This gives a possibility of mass bot feedback cheats. Could you consider adding a CAPTCHA check, at least for IPs? Could you also think about blocking blank feedback comments? --Николай95 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind blank feedback comments - it gives an indication of how useful people are finding an article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a limiter, actually, but I'll find out. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny combo when getting read lock

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T40474

When I got a read lock on 2012 Summer Olympics, the error combined with AFT5 is a bit funny :) _→AzaToth 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hah! I'll Bugzilla it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to: bugzilla:38474 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Helpfulness/Relevence scores

I was curious, what if anything do the helpfulness and relevance scores on feedback do? I know they can be used to sort in the feedback interface panel, but do they do anything more? Currently, an abuse report wipes out 5 helpful flaggings when it comes to the relevance metric, so if its being used for anything we should look into the values. Monty₈₄₅ 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's just for sorting :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist function

If I have understood correctly, rollout will be completed before the watchlist functionality has been added, and without any sort of categorisation system?I am a massive, massive fan of this feature's potential, but that strikes me as a fundamentally flawed strategy.

With around 1 in 12 articles under the new feedback system, I have found it possible to action spam and abuse, attempt to action feedback where I feel capable of doing so, and perhaps most importantly feature seemingly good feedback when I am not an expert, so that the comment is easy to find later. At that rate a few committed volunteers can ensure that a significant proportion of substantive feedback gets highlighted, even if they have no expertise.

At 100% rollout, the sheer volume of feedback will mean that the central feedback page will only be useful for combatting abuse and spam. On the other hand, watchlist functionality or the ability to search for feedback relating to articles in a certain field are the only effective ways to ensure that good feedback gets read and if appropriate actioned by those with the knowledge to do so effectively.

The whole point of inviting people to contribute is that we can make changes or respond to constrictive feedback, allowing people who care about our content to see that their contributions make a real difference. At full capacity we would be systemically incapable of doing this within a reasonable period of time, and therefore we should not be significantly expanding until the necessary system is in place. —WFC— 01:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, the watchlist function is going to be pre-full deployment. We'll go to 10 percent, and then I think it's highly unlikely we'll scale further until we've finished a load of scalability fixes..which takes a pile of time :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Okeyes. It's a shame that full scale deployment will need to wait, but I'm glad to see that those working on it understand the necessity of holding back. —WFC— 01:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing tool from Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira

For an unknown reason, this tool is missing from the article, Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira. Instead, it contains a template named "Help Improve this page". Can anyone lend a hand there to add "Page rating template". Thanks--NAHID 22:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)