IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-02-16

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Session Start: Thu Feb 16 18:32:18 2012
Session Ident: #wikimedia-meet
[18:32] * Now talking in #wikimedia-meet
[18:32] <Ironholds> hey, Bensin!
[18:32] <Bensin> hey
[18:32] -> *ChanServ* op #wikimedia-meet Ironholds
[18:32] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Ironholds
[18:32] <@Ironholds> I AM A GOD...of this channel
[18:32] * Retrieving #wikimedia-meet modes...
[18:32] * Ironholds changes topic to 'Office Hours for the Article Feedback Form, Version 5'
[18:32] * Ironholds sets mode: +s
[18:32] * ChanServ sets mode: -s
[18:32] <Bensin> Right... :-)
[18:55] * Doug_Weller (Doug_Welle@wikipedia/Dougweller) has joined #wikimedia-meet
[18:56] * tommorris (~tommorris@wikimedia/Tom-Morris) has joined #wikimedia-meet
[18:56] <tommorris> aloha
[18:58] <@Ironholds> hey, tommorris, Doug_Weller!
[18:58] <@Ironholds> as you can see from the @ sign, I am in complete control here
[19:00] <Doug_Weller> bows
[19:00] * tommorris may have to eat in a few minutes
[19:00] <Doug_Weller> may have to go watch tv in a while
[19:00] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: you get to live ;p
[19:00] <Doug_Weller> with wife of course
[19:01] * fabriceflorin (~fabricefl@216.38.130.168) has joined #wikimedia-meet
[19:01] * Bensin may rudely fall asleep.
[19:02] * howief (~howiefung@216.38.130.165) has joined #wikimedia-meet
[19:02] <fabriceflorin> Hi guys! Good to meet again ….
[19:02] <@Ironholds> Bensin: that *is* rude ;p
[19:02] <Bensin> :-)
[19:02] <@Ironholds> so, hey all :)
[19:03] <@Ironholds> We've got the feedback page to show you, at long last!
[19:03] <@Ironholds> A word of warning in advance; there are lots of bugs ;p
[19:03] <@Ironholds> we know of these bugs, we have fixed most of them, we haven't had time to implement on enwiki yet
[19:03] <fabriceflorin> Thanks for your patience, everyone!
[19:04] <fabriceflorin> Note that the feedback page is still work in progress, and we have a number of known bugs. For example, we know that the counters on the filters are wrong.
[19:04] <@Ironholds> (impressively wrong, to be fair)
[19:04] <tommorris> Ironholds: wanna BCC you something stupid. okeyes@wikimedia.org or gmail?
[19:05] <@Ironholds> (like, there's wrong, and then there's "off by a factor of around 40,000 percent". It deserves some sort of award)
[19:05] <@Ironholds> tommorris: sure
[19:05] <@Ironholds> the former
[19:05] <Doug_Weller> why can't we all have stupid stuff?
[19:05] <Doug_Weller> url?
[19:05] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: waddaya think we are, communists? :P
[19:05] <@Ironholds> and at long last: (link) :)
[19:05] <Doug_Weller> we aren't?
[19:05] <fabriceflorin> To see the updated feature requirements for the feedback page, go here -- that's what we are building:
[19:05] <tommorris> actually, wait, no stupid for Ironholds
[19:05] <fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Feedback_page
[19:05] <@Ironholds> tommorris: aw
[19:06] <tommorris> Ironholds: is there a test page, a Sandbox if you will?
[19:06] <@Ironholds> tommorris: there is, on prototype
[19:06] <@Ironholds> we'll show it to you near the end :)
[19:06] <@Ironholds> Bensin, Doug_Weller, had a chance to look at it?
[19:07] <Doug_Weller> Yep. Who's buried in Grant's tomb, by the way?
[19:07] <Bensin> Ironholds: Looking now...
[19:07] <tommorris> Ironholds: no, on enwiki, so I can hide posts and stuff without mortally offending people
[19:07] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: nobody; the Grants are in a sarcophagus, above ground
[19:08] * tommorris has to eat things. talk shortly
[19:08] <@Ironholds> tommorris: you can hide posts without offending people right now; you just unhide at the end ;p
[19:08] <Doug_Weller> sorry, it was the question about where it was
[19:09] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: heh
[19:09] <Bensin> "View original version" should probably be renamed...
[19:09] <@Ironholds> guys, if you hit F5, you now have a new comment to review :)
[19:09] <@Ironholds> Bensin: indeed! I have suggested that
[19:09] <Bensin> Good :-)
[19:09] <@Ironholds> it has been changed on prototype, looks like :)
[19:10] <fabriceflorin> Hi guys, you may want to add a bit of feedback to the Acropolis page here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens
[19:10] <Doug_Weller> Bensin, what would you like it named?
[19:11] <Doug_Weller> I don't know what 'original' means
[19:11] <fabriceflorin> Please forgive the abusive comment I just posted -- and hide it as soon as possible! (I am embarrassed to have used such strong language, but wanted to give you a concrete example of potential abuse)
[19:11] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: that is the issue. It's "how the article looked when they posted their feedback"
[19:11] <Doug_Weller> hidden and flagged as abuse by me
[19:11] <Bensin> Doug_Weller: Dunno really... "Commented version"?
[19:11] <@Ironholds> (because sometimes it'll be reporting a typo, or vandalism, or whatever, and this will have been corrected by the time someone reviews the comment. And we don't want to confuse people)
[19:12] <fabriceflorin> Post your own comments as well, either constructive or non-constructive. Then we can use the tools to flag or mark as helpful, hide, etc. The next version will include a 'Request oversight' feature as well ….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens
[19:12] <Doug_Weller> Version editor commented on is a bit clumsy, but something like that
[19:12] <Doug_Weller> Version seen by editor?
[19:13] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: We're going for "original version" at the mo, which is also clumsy :(
[19:13] <Bensin> Or "The version the editor commented"
[19:13] <Doug_Weller> I don't think 'original version' is clear enough
[19:13] <Bensin> +1
[19:14] <Bensin> It's actually quite misleading.
[19:15] <fabriceflorin> Sorry, the posting link I gave you didn't include the bucketing code. Please use this link instead to post on Acropolis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens?bucket=1&debug=true
[19:15] <Bensin> Are there gonna be a history for the feedback page? Showing who hid what etc?
[19:15] <@Ironholds> Bensin: yes :)
[19:16] <@Ironholds> in the same way we currently have oversight/revdel logs
[19:16] <Bensin> OK. Good :-)
[19:16] <@Ironholds> so like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 or whatnot
[19:16] <fabriceflorin> This will make sure that you are using Option 1 feedback form ("Did you find what you were looking for?"), as that is the only option that is being supported by the feedback page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens?bucket=1&debug=true
[19:17] <fabriceflorin> Bensin, we are changing the wording to be "View article revision", as you can see on prototype, where the latest code is being tested by the developers now: (link)
[19:18] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: That's better :-)
[19:18] <fabriceflorin> Yes, there will be an history of all actions taken for each post. It is called 'Activity log', so it is not confused with the article history. Unfortunately we can't show you that work in progress yet.
[19:19] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, Bensin. We are using the word 'revision' to match what you see when you go to that page.
[19:20] <Bensin> Excellent!
[19:20] <Bensin> I like it when things are what you expect...
[19:20] <Bensin> Wow! That makes me sound like a weirdo...
[19:20] <@Ironholds> Bensin: or someone sensible ;p
[19:20] <@Ironholds> okay, (link) has a few more comments, if people want to give it a looksee
[19:21] <Bensin> (And that last statement made me sound like I think I'm not)
[19:21] * Bensin shuts up.
[19:22] <Bensin> Looks good to me...
[19:23] <fabriceflorin> Bensin, I love that you are so reasonable. I don't think that weirdo is the best term to describe that quality, though … ;o)
[19:23] <Bensin> :-)
[19:24] <Bensin> What's the thoughts behind "39h 41m ago" instead of a regular date-stamp?
[19:24] <@Ironholds> Bensin: good question. fabriceflorin?
[19:25] <Doug_Weller> hm, pages like that might keep editors very, very busy.
[19:25] <Bensin> I'm thinking it doesn't really harmonize with our history pages that only have date-stamps...
[19:25] <fabriceflorin> We thought it would be better to have a simple, user-friendly time stamp as on Moodbar, but would still like to provide the full date on the permalink page, where we'll have a few more details about this post.
[19:26] <@Ironholds> Bensin: that's a great point
[19:26] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: it's true. imo, there are a limited set of things that are missing from articles :)
[19:27] <@Ironholds> so, lets say there are 140 potential things to complain about, and you get 12 complaints. When you fix them, your potential future workload's reduced :)
[19:27] <fabriceflorin> Yes, Bensin, that's a reasonable point. We keep going back and forth on the timestamp issue. If the feedback page is primarily for editors, a full date might make sense. But if it is also used by readers, a more friendly timestamp may make more sense.
[19:27] <@Ironholds> but if you can think of any ways to reduce the workload, I would love to hear them :)
[19:28] <fabriceflorin> Doug_Weller, we are trying to reduce the workload for editors as much as possible, using automated functions, as well as asking the readers to pre-filter with the Helpful/Unhelpful/Flag buttons.
[19:28] <howief> how can we make it easier for editors to identify the "constructive" comments, i.e., comments that could lead to a talk page discussion?
[19:29] <Bensin> I'd say that our history-pages should also be for readers, and we limit ourselves to datestamps... Anyway, if we keep this, then we should at least publish the datestamp here: (link)
[19:29] <fabriceflorin> … so by the time an editor comes in, the feedback page may already be partly ranked by readers. We are also considering having the default for readers be pre-filtered to eliminate some items flagged as abuse, long before an editor comes in to hide them.
[19:29] <@Ironholds> Bensin: good point
[19:30] <Bensin> howief: I like how YouTube lifts the two comments with best votes to the top...
[19:30] <howief> right
[19:31] <fabriceflorin> Automated functions for noise reduction include: abuse filter, spam filter, captcha on protected pages, etc. (on the front-end).
[19:31] <howief> i think the workflow we need to avoid is one where the editors feels like they need to evaluate each and every comment
[19:32] <fabriceflorin> We have also been thinking of adding a "Feature this post" function (above "Hide this post"), which would allow editors to put the best feedback on the top of the default listing for readers.
[19:32] <howief> it should probably be more of a "hey that's interesting -- let's do something about this one"
[19:32] <Bensin> Are we still working towards implementing some sort of tags where editors can mark a comment as "issue fixed"?
[19:32] <fabriceflorin> Here are some features now under consideration to reduce noise and promote good feedback (the first 7 features on that list): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Features_under_consideration
[19:33] <@Ironholds> Bensin: yeah, we are :)
[19:33] <howief> Bensin: as long as its presented in a way so that folks don't think they need to mark each post with "issue fixed"
[19:33] <howief> if we go forward with a "feature this post", maybe featured posts can be marked as "fixed"
[19:33] <Doug_Weller> actually I meant an article on evolution will get a lot of abuse from Creationists
[19:33] <Bensin> howief: That sounds good!
[19:34] <tommorris> lol creationists (link)
[19:34] <howief> Doug_Weller: it will, but what's the best way to handle the abuse
[19:34] <tommorris> so, on Firefox for Mac, the first comment is indented
[19:34] <fabriceflorin> Yes, Bensin, we have a feature under consideration that allows an editor to mark a post as "Issue solved" in the Status Panel at the end of this list: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Features_under_consideration
[19:34] <@Ironholds> tommorris: by like, half a screen?
[19:35] <@Ironholds> yeah, we know this :)
[19:35] <tommorris> yep
[19:35] <tommorris> ah okay
[19:35] <tommorris> and it'd be helpful if when there are no more posts, "Show more posts" were to go away
[19:35] <@Ironholds> tommorris: agreed
[19:35] <@Ironholds> (email me that too)
[19:35] <Bensin> tommorris: Sounds like the commenter himself might be a tad "byist" :-)
[19:35] <@Ironholds> I've got a load of bug requests to submit in ~2 days or whatnot
[19:36] <Doug_Weller> I'd like to see a 'captcha' on some unprotected articles if possible
[19:36] <fabriceflorin> Yes, TomMorris, good point. 'Show more posts' should only appear if there are more posts to show. Duly noted.
[19:36] * tommorris is writing a list of things
[19:36] <Doug_Weller> I like the issue solved idea
[19:36] <tommorris> yes, issue solved, that's the other thing
[19:36] <tommorris> nice big "tick, done!"
[19:36] <@Ironholds> Bensin: what do you mean? :)
[19:36] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: ditto. And we are talking about things like captchas for protected pages
[19:37] <@Ironholds> we had a meeting about it yesterday, and we're having another one early next week just to wrap up
[19:37] <Doug_Weller> If we are getting a lot of abuse in feedback on an unprotected page, we should be able to add a captcha if that's available.
[19:37] * Utar (50fa04ab@gateway/web/freenode/ip.80.250.4.171) has joined #wikimedia-meet
[19:37] <tommorris> also, I've sorted it by Helpful (on Evolution). when i click show more posts, it loads the same posts that are already there
[19:38] <fabriceflorin> Doug_Weller: cool, we are definitely considering a Captcha on protected and semi-protected articles. Tough we want to do research on that to make sure this really reduces noise, and doesn't alienate people who post constructive feedback.
[19:38] <howief> so let me ask a very basic question
[19:38] <Utar> hi, i wrote a notification to not forget and then leaved my mobile phone in another room
[19:38] <tommorris> really it should be sort by helpfulness
[19:38] <howief> there will inevitably be a lot of spam/vandalism
[19:38] <@Ironholds> Utar! :D
[19:38] <howief> some of it will need to be oversighted
[19:38] <Utar> yeah
[19:38] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: amen
[19:38] <@Ironholds> tommorris: yeah, we're aware of that bug
[19:38] <howief> but the last thing we want to do is to create a work stream where editors feel like they need to vandal-fight
[19:39] <fabriceflorin> Tom_Morris: please forgive us, the filtering is not working as well as it should on this version. Should be fixed by the next version.
[19:39] <howief> editors are already doing enough vandal fighting on article pages
[19:39] <tommorris> well, so long as the vandalism and useless shit goes to the bottom of the sort by helpfulness, having stupid comments isn't actually that problematic
[19:39] <howief> first of all, do people agree with that basic notion (i.e., that we try not to burden the editors with vandal-fighting the feedback post streams)?
[19:39] <tommorris> I'd rather the stupid comments and vandalism went into AFT than into the article
[19:39] <Utar> so, what§s happenning?
[19:40] <tommorris> howief: broadly, yes
[19:40] <fabriceflorin> Hey Utar, so glad you could join us: We are all commenting on this feedback page for this non-controversial article: (link)
[19:40] <howief> ok
[19:40] <Utar> :D it's in Greece, it's controversional :D
[19:40] <tommorris> It would certainly be reasonable to have it so very low-ranked feedback were to be fed into Bayesian vandalism filtering like the ClueBot data
[19:40] <Doug_Weller> feedback is easier than editing, so yes, some of that will go into feedback instead, but so will a lot of other abuse from people who wouldn't have edited
[19:41] <fabriceflorin> …. and this feedback page for a controversial article: (link)
[19:41] <howief> Doug_Weller: yes
[19:41] <Utar> it says comments only (3) but i see 4
[19:42] <howief> but at the same time, if editors feel compelled to curate the feedback stream, we're just moving work from one place to another
[19:42] <Utar> all visible (6) means there are 8 of them
[19:42] <Utar> ???
[19:44] <@Ironholds> Utar: indeed. It's a known bug
[19:44] <@Ironholds> it also occasionally claims there are 446,000 pieces of feedback :P
[19:44] <Utar> II - clicking on signed name gives you contribuions always
[19:44] <Utar> usually you get contributions for IP addressess and user page for users
[19:44] <tommorris> Ironholds: bugs are good. the only way to have no bugs is to not write any software.
[19:45] <@Ironholds> tommorris: I have had zero bugs in my life. clearly I am an efficient programmer.
[19:45] <fabriceflorin> Did anyone hide anything on the Evolution page yet? If so, why did you hide that post? (link)
[19:45] <@Ironholds> Utar: that is a great point. writing it down
[19:46] <Utar> ha, Sucrology is a stub too
[19:46] <fabriceflorin> As a newbie editor, I just hid a post that only said 'poop' -- I couldn't see how that could possibly help the editors improve this page. Would you have done the same or not?
[19:46] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: How do we separate comments that should be flagged for abuse from those that should just be hidden?
[19:46] <Bensin> (What are the criteria?)
[19:47] <tommorris> I've got an aesthetic thing. is there any chance we could have different smiley faces? it doesn't look so good scaled down to the size it is used on the feedback page.
[19:47] <tommorris> designers are perfectly at liberty to tell me to go fuck myself on that though.
[19:47] <tommorris> I won't take any offence. ;-)
[19:47] <Utar> am not sure if 25m 31s ago always is good idea
[19:47] <Utar> usually yes
[19:47] <Utar> but whey i click on it
[19:47] <Utar> to see only that one exact commnet
[19:47] <fabriceflorin> Bensin: the 'flag for abuse' function is available to all readers, so it is intended to help editors find quickly what should be hidden. Only experienced editors have access to the hide function, which is meant as a second step.
[19:47] <@Ironholds> tommorris: haha. I know Brandon is planning to give the UI another pass
[19:47] <Utar> i would like to see exact time
[19:47] <@Ironholds> I'll write it down
[19:48] <Bensin> ok...
[19:48] <@Ironholds> Utar: also being written down :). It is the normal way of doing things
[19:49] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Should we rename "Hide this post" to "Hide abusive post"?
[19:49] <Bensin> To make it clear only abusive posts should be hidden?
[19:49] <Doug_Weller> Don't we want to hide useless posts also, eg the blank one?
[19:49] <fabriceflorin> Utar: the current plan is to use a simpler timestamp as in Moodbar that only shows 1 hour ago, 1 day ago, 1 week ago, etc. But if you click on that timestamp, it takes you to a permalink where we can provide more info, including the full date.
[19:49] <@Ironholds> Bensin: interesting idea!
[19:49] <tommorris> so, going back to what howie was saying, if there is any plan for editors to actually curate the stream, or there is any plan to, it'd be nice to have sort of in-browser huggle
[19:49] <tommorris> but for feedback
[19:49] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: actually, no. It'll be under the revdel guidelines
[19:50] <tommorris> so instead of having to click around with mah mouse, I can just fire up the stream, get real-time events coming in, then deal with them by keyboard
[19:50] <tommorris> wikipedia always needs to be more friendly for keyboard-preference users
[19:50] <howief> tommorris: i think the first question we need to ask is whether this list should be curated at all
[19:50] <howief> or rather, to what degree it should be curated
[19:50] <Utar> fabriceflorin - i don§t have problems with AGO style on the main page but after clicking i would like to see both types
[19:50] <@Ironholds> howief: have you taken your meds?!
[19:50] <@Ironholds> oh, that makes more sense
[19:50] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, TomMorris, good idea -- we'll look and see if there could be some tie-ins with Huggle or other similar tool.
[19:51] <howief> it's going to be lot of work if, for example, we hide every since blank post
[19:51] <Utar> III = when you click YES-NO you need to reload page to see it happen
[19:51] <fabriceflorin> Hi Utar, yes, we would show both timestamps on the permalink, as you suggest. Great minds think alike!
[19:51] <tommorris> howief: it's more, if the community feels it necessary, the Foundation should probably be planning for the possibility of needing a tool to handle it
[19:51] <howief> it seems like there are two extremes to the curating issue:
[19:51] <Utar> but once you have voted and change your mind for seeing the change you don§t need to reload
[19:51] <howief> tommorris: yes, and that's the question i want to explore
[19:51] <tommorris> how the community react is relatively unpredictable. ;-)
[19:51] <howief> with a lot of sensitivity to the workload issue
[19:52] <howief> it seems like the range is:
[19:52] <@Ironholds> Utar: yeah, that's a lag :(
[19:52] <@Ironholds> we're working on it
[19:52] <fabriceflorin> The permalink could also include more details, like showing the Activity panel, as described on this page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Intermediate_Feedback_Page_-_Hider.27s_view
[19:52] <Doug_Weller> rev/del guidelines for blank posts?
[19:52] <howief> 1) minimal curation where editors simply either a) "feature this post" and b) hide objectionable material (however objectionable is defined)
[19:52] <Utar> @Ironholds: really? 5 seconds and nothing one way and immeditae respond the other one?
[19:53] <fabriceflorin> Here's what the Activity panel would look like (we could show this below the permalink as well): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/AFT5-Feedback-Page-Activity-Log-02-07-crop.png
[19:53] <Utar> thats a bit too much diference, imo
[19:53] <@Ironholds> Utar: totally agreed. It has been thrown at the devs; they're fixing stuff as we speak
[19:53] <howief> 2) curation of the entire stream where editors go post by post and make some determination as to the value of each post
[19:53] <fabriceflorin> We already have that Activity panel implemented on prototype, which is exciting. But can't show it to you live yet -- next week for suyre.
[19:54] <howief> I'm sure the actual use by the community will be somewhere in the middle, but when we build the features out, it would ideal if we knew which end of the spectrum the actual use of the feedback stream will be closer to
[19:55] <tommorris> howief: I think basically you need to hope for the best (light curation) but have some plans in place for if the community decide they prefer the worst (Huggle-style curation of every single feedback post)
[19:56] <tommorris> basically, if in six months time the community are saying "yeah, this isn't quite working out, we need to monitor the feedback coming in", have some idea what could be built to fix that
[19:56] <howief> tommorris: sounds reasonable
[19:56] <tommorris> you don't have to build it now, but have in the back of your mind what happens in that eventuality
[19:56] <fabriceflorin> TomMorris, I think your answer makes good sense. Some editors will want to be more involved than others, on a page-by-page basis.
[19:56] <howief> one thing i would keep in mind, though, is that we're clear on the cost/benefit
[19:57] <tommorris> and "let the community cobble something rubbish together that sort of works, and runs on someone's PC -- up until they take it to a LAN party or forget to pay this hosting bill" is not a good plan
[19:57] <howief> huggle style curation comes at a significant cost to the community
[19:57] <howief> so in that case, the benefit of the feedback post streams should ideally outweigh the costs of curation
[19:57] <fabriceflorin> If we can start elevating the best posts into some form of to-do list that can be shared on the talk page, this could become an invaluable tool over time. So the true value of the feedback tool may not be fully realized until we can do this.
[19:58] <fabriceflorin> So what are your overall impressions of the feedback page as it stands now?
[19:58] <tommorris> so, a very simple in-browser Huggle type tool for editors, maybe a keyboard accessible feedbackdashboard type thing for AFT feedback would be one way
[19:58] <@Ironholds> tommorris: that's an interesting idea
[19:58] <tommorris> or even just piping all the incoming feedback into IRC so people can at least have it skim past them and easily pick out the bad stuff
[19:58] <tommorris> or have some idea of machine filtering the bad stuff, Bayesian spam filter style
[19:59] <howief> i like the idea of machine filtering the bad stuff :)
[19:59] <howief> that will certainly help
[19:59] <fabriceflorin> Tom_Morris, what if we didn't show the feedback page at all to readers? Would that reduce the load on the editors to think they have to curate it? This would make that task more optional, wouldn't it?
[19:59] <howief> or maybe only showed the featured posts?
[19:59] <tommorris> fabriceflorin: yeah, I wouldn't lead with that, but have that there as an option
[20:00] <tommorris> basically, what you need is about five or ten backup plans. "What happens if this all goes tits-up"
[20:00] <tommorris> sorry, tits-up is a UKism
[20:00] <tommorris> (idiomatic) (slang) (vulgar) completely failed so as to become inactive
[20:00] <fabriceflorin> Ultimately, the question is who can best determine feedback quality: readers? editors? machines? some of the above? all of the above? none of the above?
[20:00] * howief (~howiefung@216.38.130.165) Quit (Quit: howief)
[20:00] <tommorris> fabriceflorin: editors, probably
[20:03] <Utar> they should know what is good for articles
[20:03] <Bensin> We'll use machines as a first defence against spam and nonsensense right?
[20:03] <Utar> IV = why is no smile by 99.199.50.58 posted this comment ?
[20:03] <tommorris> I'm presuming that blocked users are unable to post feedback, right?
[20:03] <Utar> V = will there be some 0 smile?
[20:03] <Doug_Weller> yes, machines first
[20:04] <@Ironholds> Utar: sorry?
[20:04] <@Ironholds> Utar: for IV, presumably they didn't hit yes/no
[20:04] <Utar> see yourself there
[20:04] <Utar> 0 yes, 1 no
[20:05] <fabriceflorin> Yes, machines will be the first line of defense, Bensin, through Abuse Filter.
[20:05] <Utar> 03:11, 1 February 2012
[20:06] <@Ironholds> Utar: vun moment
[20:06] <fabriceflorin> … and also through other mechanisms beyond abuse filter … at some point, if a user's posts are continually being flagged and hidden, perhaps we might not show their future posts as prominently, for example.
[20:06] <@Ironholds> yes, I assume they didn't hit yes/no on the feedback form itself
[20:06] <tommorris> any plans to have it so that those who can hide can get a list of the most abuse-flagged stuff?
[20:06] <@Ironholds> but someone has hit yes/no on the page
[20:06] <@Ironholds> tommorris: after something's been flagged five times, it'll be auto-hidden
[20:06] <@Ironholds> so I'm not sure what the use-case would be
[20:06] <tommorris> you know, if there's a post that 50 people have flagged as abuse, I should probably consider blocking them. ;-)
[20:07] <fabriceflorin> TomMorris, hiders can always click on the drop down menu to see the filter for "Flagged as abuse"
[20:07] <tommorris> fabriceflorin: yeah, but site-wide? it'd be useful to see possible abuse
[20:07] <tommorris> and if there's abuse in the feedback, you never know... there might be abuse in the article too. ;-)
[20:08] <fabriceflorin> We also plan to have a centralized article feedback log, which might be helpful to some folks (mostly oversighters, but perhaps also hiders): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Related_Features
[20:08] <tommorris> it's all looking pretty good so far
[20:08] <@Ironholds> okay, it looks like fabriceflorin has to go
[20:08] <tommorris> ditto
[20:09] <@Ironholds> so, I'll drop y'all a note when our next session is scheduled; we also may have other stuff to do with you in the meantime
[20:09] <tommorris> also, Ironholds, I told WereSpiels to read your NPP report given that he tends to care about NPP
[20:09] <@Ironholds> thanks, as always, for all the feedback. It's been fantastic :)
[20:09] <@Ironholds> tommorris: I will murder you and post your severed head to your mother
[20:09] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, TomMorris, glad we're headed in the right direction. Couldn't do it without you guys. Thanks as always for your invaluable feedback, which helps us enormously.
[20:09] <@Ironholds> I mean, uh. thanks.
[20:09] <Doug_Weller> ok, I'm off now too, thanks, useful. I read your report on NPP by the way, excellent
[20:09] <@Ironholds> Doug_Weller: thanks! :)
[20:10] <@Ironholds> I need to regenerate a load of the graphs and do some more analysis, but I'm pretty pleased with it
[20:10] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, Doug_Weller, your support means a lot to us. We'll keep ploughing ahead and hope to put some of your good suggestions into practice in coming weeks. See you soon!
[20:10] <tommorris> oh yeah, I've got a little project for tomorrow: Reliable Source Search
[20:10] <fabriceflorin> Bye everyone!
[20:10] <@Ironholds> okay, right! dinner time for me
[20:11] <@Ironholds> take care all. I haven't eaten today yet
Session Close: Thu Feb 16 20:11:05 2012