Grants talk:IdeaLab/Health rating radio button template on talk pages

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Already exists?[edit]

Hi @Edaham: the work for this may already mostly exist, see w:en:Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool for a prior project. Is that what you are looking for? — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edaham: I agree with Xaosflux-- the article feedback tool may serve as a useful example of how to implement a similar kind of reporting system for talk pages. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux: yes, that is similar enough to my idea that it could be said to have been implemented already. It looks like it was successful in its initial run. I did not read the RfC related to its discontinuation, but assume that it became less useful at some point. There are several variations on this idea that are worth exploring, with many possible analyses and means of interpreting the data that could be retrieved from such a tool. Since I’m viewing a banner calling for ideas for ways to assess community health at the moment, a recall of this idea might be worth looking at. I had talkpage feedback rather than article page rating in mind. The idea I was thinking about would call for users to rate their experience in collaborations with other editors editing the same article. The idea would be to monitor disputes rather than page quality, with a view to creating a smoother community experience. Edaham (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions about your idea[edit]

Hi there Edaham and Wmnann - thanks for submitting your idea for the Inspire Campaign (and for expressing interest)! I just have some questions I'd like to ask about your idea:

  1. Do you have any ideas on how to develop this idea further?
  2. Do you think this could be developed by volunteers, or would it need to be by developers at the Wikimedia Foundation?
  3. How long do you think a project like this might take?
  4. Could you elaborate a bit more about how this would function, and how that would help to measure community health on a project-wide scale? (You do explain a little about this in the above section, but a bit more would be helpful.)

It may also be a good idea to research the history of article feedback research - while this is not exactly what you are proposing, there are some parallels there and I think that previous work could help to inform this sort of project. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. To develop this idea further I’d need to work with a coder. I could do the UI design and make a mock up in photoshop or basic HTML of what the page would look like with the added radio buttons. I cannot write the code and do not know enough about how the server works to know how or where the information would be retrievable.
  2. It would almost certainly require the support of people with access to the server. Basic editors wouldn’t be able to implement it as the information retrieved Should be at least partly secure and private.
  3. Regarding a time frame Implementing it could probably be done quickly. My estimate is probably about a month to get it up and running, with about 15 days of working out a workflow and UX design, followed by about 15 days of coding and limited trial. It’s not a particularly complex thing to implement.
  4. concerning the implementation
    1. For simplicity we could scale this back to just two options: The talk page is either
      1. Healthy
      2. Unhealthy
    2. These options could appear at the top of the talk page or next to the publish button when publishing (English Wikipedia).
    3. There would be a question next to the publish button, it would read, “How would you rate the community health of this discussion page? / good / bad /“
    4. After selecting an option for that page, that option would be selected by default the next time the user publishes to that discussion page.
    5. The user would have the option to change their mind and rate the page healthy, but not to uncheck or remove the vote once it had been cast.
    6. This will tell us three things
      1. how many people on the page are voting
      2. An average of the total will give us a positive or negative rating
      3. How many people are changing their minds
    7. Administrators or others involved in mediation will have access to a list off pages in order of page health.
    8. Supplimentary documentation on mediation can be produced to help uninvolved editors assist in the task of mediation.


I can produce some screen shots of this system in action and we can move from there if the community here thinks its a good idea to try. Edaham (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Based on the above, we’d need

  1. Focus group A focus group of users experienced in user experience design and administration to discuss this idea once some screen shots have been produced. We’d want to keep this group down to a reasonable size. The idea would be to build on it and decide how to best use the info that we retrieve. I’m going to say 5 to 10 English Wikipedia administrators or highly experienced editors. This group would also work with the copywriter to review and edit the preliminary draft of the mediation advice.
  2. coder A coder who could write and implement the code
  3. designer someone to design the page layout and incorporate the selection buttons
  4. copywriter someone to write advice for people mediating, rather like the advice and guidelines for “New page reviewers”. This person should have experience writing English Wikipedia policy and be a good mediator.

Edaham (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edaham: Thanks for this overview of needs for this idea. I think the concept template across talk pages on a given Wikimedia projects will, as you've noted, require some consultation with volunteers on that project. On English Wikipedia, this process would need to be done through a Request for Comments. The screenshots would be helpful for the community to understand how the proposal could work in practice. This proposal could also be framed as a pilot test across a small number of pages to start. If there is community support for the idea, I think it's appropriate to consider requesting either a Rapid Grant or a Project Grant depending on the scope of the project, and I'm happy to help you consider those options if you want to discuss further. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screen shots[edit]

@I JethroBT (WMF): @Jhalmuri:

Related pages on en-wiki

Edaham (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Step 1, User expands the page health menu using the "show" tag on the right
  • Step 2, User selects the option applicable to that page
  • Step 3, An alert message appears informing the user that their selection has been recorder (no screen shot) - this alert box also has an input box and a prompt to leave a comment
  • Step 4, The alert box or message is closed and the selected option now appears highlighted
  • Step 5, the next time the page is loaded their previous choice is displayed next to the "show/hide" tag, which now reads "change"


Edaham (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where on en-WP would the RFC be placed? Edaham (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edaham: Good question. As this would be a proposal potentially changing all talk pages, it would be best placed as a centralized discussion, as its impact would be widespread. That being said, you could consider proposing a pilot on a specific set of talk pages first as a trial run, perhaps in a certain topic area or on a specific set of articles first. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd see the template as a thing editors could add to a talk page. not a mandatory thing. The same as wiki-project banners or blp notices can be added. Some are more optional than others on en-wiki. This would be an optional one. I'm leaning toward village pump for an initial discussion. My feeling is that if it gets one or two supporters there then it would be worth taking to CENT. Haven't seen you for some time. hope you're well. Edaham (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edaham: That's a good point-- the village pump would be a fair place to gauge attitudes and to gather some additional feedback, and making the template optional seems very reasonable as well. It's good seeing you, too! Hope you had a happy new year, and I hope to do some occasional editing and admin work in 2019. Free time is at a luxury for me these days, though I enjoy my responsibilities. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@I JethroBT (WMF): That's done - I've mentioned the project here at the village pump and also made a reference to the discussion here at a related community page. Edaham (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interested in involving in the project as a System Admin[edit]

you can check my profile at LinkedIn: StackOverflow: Jhalmuri (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]