Jump to content

IRC office hours/Office hours 2011-12-16

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Session Start: Fri Dec 16 18:53:32 2011
Session Ident: #wikimedia-office
[18:53] * Now talking in #wikimedia-office
[18:53] * Topic is 'https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours (many of us are watching http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa) See also : #sopa'
[18:53] * Set by kim__!~kim@bruning.xs4all.nl on Thu Dec 15 21:04:12
[18:53] * Mrmatiko (~Adium@wikipedia/Mrmatiko) has joined #wikimedia-office
[18:53] <Ironholds> Bensin: getting a head-start? :P
[18:54] * shimgray (~andrew@wikimedia/Shimgray) has joined #wikimedia-office
[18:57] <Bensin> He
[18:57] <Bensin> :-)
[18:57] <Bensin> Ironholds: Do you still need help categorizing comments?
[18:58] * fabriceflorin (~fabricefl@c-98-210-230-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #wikimedia-office
[18:59] * kaldari (~rkaldari@ has joined #wikimedia-office
[18:59] * Chzz (~Chzz_x@wikipedia/Chzz) has joined #wikimedia-office
[18:59] <Ironholds> Bensin: indeed!
[19:00] <Bensin> How can I help?
[19:00] <Chzz> is this thing on?
[19:00] * Chzz taps microphone
[19:00] * Ironholds: you're not a channel operator
[19:00] <fabriceflorin> Hello everyone! Good to see so many of you here today!
[19:00] <Ironholds> Chzz: indeed!
[19:00] <Chzz> kk
[19:00] <Ironholds> Bensin: all will be revealed :)
[19:01] <Bensin> OK :-)
[19:01] <Ironholds> vun moment all, I just need to check on something
[19:01] <Chzz> who knows stuff about this AF v5 then?
[19:01] <Chzz> what's the sitn?
[19:01] <Chzz> when is it gonna be tested?
[19:01] <Ironholds> Chzz: that'd be myself and fabrice, at the moment. And of course Bensin, who has been wonderfully helpful
[19:01] <Ironholds> Chzz: deployment gets rolled out Monday; it was initially meant to be earlier, but we had some last-minute bugs to fix.
[19:01] <fabriceflorin> Its an exciting day for all of us on the AFTv5 team.
[19:02] <fabriceflorin> We plan to launch new versions of the AFT v5 feedback forms next week, and are looking for a few people to help us test that they work as intended.
[19:02] <Chzz> Ironholds ok, so; can u show us what? is that a 'free text' type thing? and, how many pages u testing it on?
[19:02] <fabriceflorin> Is anyone here interested in helping test our Article Feedback Tool v5 today?
[19:02] <Ironholds> Chzz: around 10,000, and yes, and yes :)
[19:03] <Chzz> Ironholds it's similar system to the user feedback, yeah? so... my main probs are... - it can't be edited. or suppressed. It's not like a "normal" page. That bothers me
[19:03] <fabriceflorin> To get started, here is our testing page URL: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing
[19:03] * Utar (50fa04ab@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:03] <Utar> Ironhold: hi, all
[19:03] <Ironholds> Chzz: suppression is going to be worked in; the test version doesn't include the feedback being shown publicly, so it's not really an issue right now.
[19:03] <Chzz> I dont like fully-protected pages, see? And ... that's what this makes - I think?
[19:03] <Ironholds> hey, Utar! Great to have you here
[19:04] <Chzz> I can't edit the feedback stuff?
[19:04] <Chzz> I'm concerned about who polices it, you see?
[19:04] <Chzz> 'coz... Ironholds, well... you know. people WILL screw around with it
[19:04] <shimgray> the moodbar stuff has no editing, but it has display/suppress. would that work better?
[19:04] <Ironholds> Chzz: indeed! Hence the hide function, and the oversight function
[19:04] * DarTar (~DarTar@wikimedia/DarTar) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:04] <fabriceflorin> This testing page has simple instructions on how to help us test the beta version of this new feature.
[19:04] <Chzz> Ironholds I can't hide it tho. not admin
[19:05] <Chzz> that sucks
[19:05] * RoanKattouw_away is now known as RoanKattouw
[19:05] <Ironholds> Chzz: the "hide" functions access levels are yet to be determined; it may be open to anyone autoconfirmed, for example
[19:05] <Ironholds> *function's
[19:05] <fabriceflorin> No special technical skills are required to help test this feature, though we encourage you to be methodical in your reporting. ;o)
[19:05] <kaldari> I have a couple suggestions on the layout, would this be a good time to bring them up?
[19:05] <fabriceflorin> We recommend that contributors test the links on that page and if they find a bug, file it in Bugzilla -- or add a note on the talk page of this testing page.
[19:05] <Ironholds> Chzz: we have a bit of a tight schedule, so is there any chance you could save questions until the end? We may answer ones on the way :)
[19:06] * howief (~howiefung@ has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:06] <fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing
[19:06] <Ironholds> kaldari: I'd recommend bringing them up internally :). If there is anything you don't like, it's jorm's fault.
[19:06] * Ironholds applies that test to everything, up to and including the price of food.
[19:06] <jorm> don't say that.
[19:06] <jorm> i have had little to do with the layout here.
[19:06] <kaldari> one of them is trivial to fix
[19:06] <fabriceflorin> First, try out option 1 of the feedback form: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=1
[19:07] <Ironholds> kaldari: then can you email me or Howie, or bring it up at the end? Schedules are schedules :(
[19:07] <Chzz> Ironholds allow the 'hide' for rollbackers, and I'll be happy and shut up. deal?
[19:07] <kaldari> cool
[19:07] <fabriceflorin> This first version of the form asks you if you found what you were looking for. Answer Yes or No, then add a comment and click 'Post your feedback.'
[19:07] * Keegan (~chatzilla@c-68-62-212-254.hsd1.al.comcast.net) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[19:07] <Ironholds> Chzz: that'll be determined as and when, I'm afraid; I'm not in the position to say "we will definitely do X" or "we will definitely do Y"
[19:07] <Ironholds> it's like asking the Honda janitor to set car prices ;p
[19:07] <Chzz> Ironholds ok, well... that's a big problem then, so I'm sorry; it's a very real and current concern; so I'll need to explain why;
[19:08] * Demiurge1000 (~chatzilla@wikipedia/Demiurge1000) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:08] <Ironholds> Chzz: no, I know why you think it's an issue
[19:08] <Chzz> Ironholds with the "user feedback" I've seen all kinds of crap; and I can't edit it. This is gonna be worse. It's allowing new users to write protected pages
[19:08] <fabriceflorin> Here's more info about how Option 1 of the form is supposed to work now: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Option_1
[19:08] <Ironholds> despite what people may think about anyone with a WMF suffix on their username, I'm an editor, and I know what the problem is
[19:08] <Chzz> Ironholds yes, yes, but it's *important* - really. really really important
[19:08] <Ironholds> particularly since you've explained it to me 3-4 times :P
[19:08] <Ironholds> Chzz, I know it's important, really, really, really important. That's why I've been trying my darndest to get such things worked in.
[19:09] <Chzz> yes, I've explained it. But, it seems like it's being just ignored
[19:09] <Ironholds> Chzz: me saying "access levels haven't been set yet, I'd like to see more than just admins being able to do it" is ignoring it? :P
[19:09] <fabriceflorin> If you would like to help us test, we invite you to try different variations of feedback. For example, on Option 1, try answering Yes and post the feedback without comments. Then try answering No without comment. Then try not answering Yes or No and just posting a comment. Does anything strange happen when you do that? http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=1
[19:09] <Ironholds> Utar, Bensin, while this goes on - you both seen the testing fabriceflorin is talking about?
[19:09] <Utar> Ironholds: Good to see several conversations going one through another but I am getting a bit confused sometimes...
[19:09] <Chzz> *****************when someone posts the phone number of a child, or a threat to detonate a bomb, or a suicide threat in their 'feedback' - will someone finally listen?
[19:09] <fabriceflorin> The expected result of clicking 'Post your feeback' should be that you get a Thank you message, with a call to action inviting you to edit this page. Click on 'Edit this page': are you able to edit that page as intended? (please make minor edits only, so the page doesn't get vandalized in the process ;o)
[19:10] <Utar> Ironholds: Yeah, I did it and I sended you an e-mail.
[19:10] <Chzz> I make no apologies for shouting about that
[19:10] <Ironholds> Utar: indeed! yes, I remember; with the helpful screenshots
[19:10] <Utar> Ironholds: rather several e-mails
[19:11] <fabriceflorin> If you see anything that appears to be broken when testing the feedback form, the best way to let us know is to file a bug on Bugzilla. To do that, follow the instructions on our testing page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing#How_to_report_a_bug
[19:11] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: How many times does Ironholds have to say your concern has been noted before you stop yelling about it?
[19:11] <Utar> Ironholds: It seems to differenciate a bit every time I go there.
[19:11] <fabriceflorin> What do you mean by that, Utar?
[19:11] <Ironholds> Utar: the design?
[19:12] <Chzz> RoanKattouw "concern has been noted" is great, but... when someone posts the phone number of a child, or a threat to detonate a bomb, or a suicide threat in their 'feedback' - will someone finally listen?
[19:12] <Utar> Ironholds: NO, the position of SIDE AFT.
[19:12] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: So you're assuming that no one will listen before it comes to that. That's a nice assumption of good faith ^^
[19:12] <Ironholds> Utar: ahh, the feedback tab thing? Yes, fabriceflorin has been experimenting with the language
[19:13] <fabriceflorin> Is everyone OK if I continue to go through the discussion about testing AFTv5, despite Chzz's repeated interruptions?
[19:13] <Utar> Ironholds: Should that side link AFT be on that laboratory wiki too?
[19:13] <Utar> fabriceflorin: Roll it out.
[19:13] <Ironholds> Utar: no; basically, we've decided it's too technically finnicky to test first-time round :)
[19:13] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, Utar, much appreciated.
[19:13] <Chzz> RoanKattouw it is a problem right now. I raised the problem on 9 Nov. It remains a very serious concern. I'm sure, like me, you are concerned about things like suicide/death threats
[19:14] <fabriceflorin> Chzz, do you realize that you are interrupting a meeting about a completely different topic?
[19:14] <Chzz> fabriceflorin I'll be happy to shut up about that issue, if you can please assure me you will address it before any rollout
[19:14] <RoanKattouw> I think you're trying to convince people of something they're already convinced of, Chzz , there's no point in repeating it now
[19:14] <Bensin> Chzz: Ironholds usually stays after the Office hource session and answers questions at great lenght. Can you perhaps hold your concerns until then?
[19:15] <howief> Let's move on guys
[19:15] <fabriceflorin> I am happy to consider your request in our next meeting.
[19:15] <Chzz> fabriceflorin this office hours is about the article feedback tool - is it not?
[19:15] <Utar> Ironholds: OK, I tried the FF's link upwards and didn't saw it there.
[19:15] <Ironholds> Bensin: I won't actually be able to do it this week :(
[19:15] <Chzz> no, wait; you're planning to roll this out soon, yes? so... it's a problem
[19:15] <Ironholds> Chzz: without any feedback being publicly displayed.
[19:15] <howief> when the feedback gets publicly displayed
[19:15] <Ironholds> but as I've repeatedly said to Chzz in my many conversations with him, anyone with concerns can email me.
[19:15] <fabriceflorin> Utar, we held back on testing your placement idea for this round, but will test it in a couple weeks. One thing at a time.
[19:15] <howief> there will be oversight
[19:16] <shimgray> howief: aha. so first phase is like the current test, feedback is logged but hidden?
[19:16] <Chzz> Ironholds howief fabriceflorin ok; sorry. didn't know it wouldn't be public. I need to understand that. Tell me more.
[19:16] <Utar> fabriceflorin: NO problem with it.
[19:16] <fabriceflorin> We didn't want to upset people before with these feedback links in the first deployment, but will test them next.
[19:17] <Ironholds> Chzz: I said that earlier.
[19:17] <Chzz> I thought - from the pages I read - it would be similar to the user feedback 'dashboard' thing
[19:17] <Ironholds> shimgray: exactly. A/b testing for the forms.
[19:17] <Chzz> if that's wrong, I'm sorry
[19:17] <Ironholds> Chzz: it will be, when it is fully deployed
[19:17] <Ironholds> this is just the test period
[19:17] <Utar> fabriceflorin: I see you corrected that typo in "Not V/v ery helpful", thanks.
[19:17] <fabriceflorin> For those of you who don't like Bugzilla, I want to point out that you can report a bug by leaving a note in the talk page of our discussion page, but this will not be as visible to the developers. One of us would have to file a bug based on your note, which will delay the process. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing
[19:17] <Ironholds> and as howief has just told you, and as I told you earlier, oversight will be available when public feedback is.
[19:17] <Ironholds> to follow on from fabriceflorin's point, you can also just drop me an email at okeyes@wikimedia.org
[19:18] <Ironholds> Utar can verify that I do not bite, although I may ask for screenshots :P
[19:18] <howief> to be clear, we need to figure out the exact nature of oversight (levels, permissions, etc.)
[19:18] <fabriceflorin> One more thing about reporting bugs on the talk page: try to be as specific as possible about what happened, what you expected would happen, and give us details on the exact steps we need to follow to reproduce your bug. Also, please give us your operating system, browser version and connection speed. Like this we can narrow down the problem on our end, so we can try to fix it.
[19:18] * Chzz m_O_m -bow. ok. sorry. if the data is not being made public, ok; sorry; apologies
[19:18] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, Chzz.
[19:18] <Utar> Ironholds: yes, but I was just writing about that posibility, you are faster again
[19:18] * Mrmatiko (~Adium@wikipedia/Mrmatiko) has left #wikimedia-office
[19:18] <fabriceflorin> Once you are done testing first version of the feedback form, try this second version: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=2
[19:18] <Ironholds> Utar: I type like a maniac
[19:18] <Utar> I vei
[19:19] <Ironholds> the first skype call I had with these guys, they heard me type and then just went
[19:19] <Ironholds> "...Oliver, are you using a Dvorak keyboard?"
[19:19] <Ironholds> "nope. Just hella-fast."
[19:19] <fabriceflorin> This Option 2 form doesn't have a Yes/No button, but instead lets you specify the type of feedback which you are posting: Suggestion, Praise, Problem or Question. Please try each option, add a comment, and click on 'Post your feedback'. Any problems with any of these options?
[19:20] <fabriceflorin> What do you guys think of that form? Jorm created special icons for it, adapted from MoodBar.
[19:20] <Chzz> link?
[19:20] <Utar> Ironholds: Dvorak keyboard was patented in 1936 by Dr. August Dvorak who is related to the Czech composer Antonín Dvořák. Cool.
[19:21] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Am I correct in assuming that you want feedback just for how these versions performes technically, and not how it looks or phrases the questions?
[19:21] <Ironholds> Chzz: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=2
[19:21] <Chzz> ta
[19:21] <fabriceflorin> Chzz, here is our testing page URL: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing
[19:21] <Chzz> on c. 10k articles, as a test?
[19:21] <Chzz> when, and for how long?
[19:22] <Ironholds> Chzz: Monday, around 3 weeks
[19:22] <Ironholds> (but it is actually a test this time. A proper test, not a pending-changes-only-a-test style test)
[19:22] <fabriceflorin> Here is the third version of the feedback form which we are testing this month: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=3
[19:22] <Chzz> who will be able to view the feedback given?
[19:22] <fabriceflorin> Give the article a rating, add a comment and click 'Post your feedback'. Does the feedback form work as intended? Anything out of the ordinary?
[19:23] <Ironholds> Chzz: just our staff, until the full page is rolled out, and also anyone who participates in the "hand coding"
[19:23] <Ironholds> which is basically "categorising comments as sucky or unsucky so we know which form produces the most useful comments"
[19:23] <howief> the tables will also be available on toolserver i believe
[19:23] <howief> so people with toolserver accounts should be able to query
[19:23] <Chzz> ok; re 'bucket 2' I think the placement of the icons is a bit shit
[19:23] <Ironholds> Chzz: noted!
[19:24] * sousousou (~brent@host-72-174-54-175.msl-mt.client.bresnan.net) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:24] <Chzz> 'coz, typing something in... I wouldn't then "look back" at the choices of "praise problem question"
[19:24] <Chzz> I'd just type in the box
[19:24] <Chzz> you get me?
[19:24] <Ironholds> (for clarity, to those who might be new to these sessions: SOP is for me to take the logs, note any questions or suggestions, forward them to the devs)
[19:24] <howief> yup
[19:24] <Chzz> I suggest, ditch the icons
[19:24] <Chzz> just let 'em type stuff
[19:24] <fabriceflorin> Note that we are not testing prominent feedback links or the feedback page on this first test. We didn't want to overwhelm folks with too many features in the midst of the holidays.
[19:24] <howief> well, let's see how the data come in
[19:24] <Ironholds> Chzz: agreed. I had the same issue, actually; I was going "instinctively I just skip to the box"
[19:24] * GorillaWarfare (~quassel@wikipedia/GorillaWarfare) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:24] <Chzz> 'coz let's be honest... the 'praise' or 'problem' means shit-all anyway
[19:24] <Ironholds> but as howief says, we'll see what happens
[19:24] <fabriceflorin> Thanks, Chzz, duly noted.
[19:24] <howief> the icons (categories) are nice because then it allows us to filter stuff
[19:25] <Chzz> mmm, yeah
[19:25] <Chzz> if you want to try them tho, put 'em AFTER the text
[19:25] <Ironholds> Chzz: that's a good idea!
[19:25] <Chzz> "I like this article" THEN you click "good"
[19:25] <SpitfireWP> To be honest, the icon placing seems quite intuitive, and the speech bubble makes it clear how to use them.
[19:25] <Ironholds> hey, GorillaWarfare: welcome to the show!
[19:25] <Chzz> also, "praise" sucks, as a word
[19:25] <fabriceflorin> To see all of the bugs that are now being worked on for phase 1.0, check this Bugzilla search page: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=aftv5-1.0&list_id=61530
[19:25] <GorillaWarfare> Hello :]
[19:25] <Chzz> "good", "bad", "other" <- better
[19:25] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: so, we've got two things to do at the moment, if you're interested in helping
[19:25] <Chzz> hello, long-haired yobbo
[19:26] <Ironholds> the first is testing the prototypes. This offers the possibility of seeing pretty previews.
[19:26] <Ironholds> (and watching them break, MASSIVELY)
[19:26] <fabriceflorin> We like that this bug list is pretty short now. We had over 90 bugs and tickets a week ago ;o)
[19:26] <Utar> --
[19:26] <Ironholds> the second is categorising feedback when it comes in so we know which form sucks the least. You can get involved in both, either, or neither :)
[19:26] <Chzz> --- point of order, re. this meeting; I know we have limited time, so; I ask the coordinators to please specify the objectives of THIS session ---
[19:26] <Ironholds> Chzz: good point
[19:27] <fabriceflorin> But if you find any nasty technical bugs, please report them on Bugzilla, following these instructions on our testing page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing#Bugzilla
[19:27] <Ironholds> so, this meeting is basically aimed at pushing the prototype testing and hand coding, advertising the upcoming launch, and asking for feedback on an FAQ I wrote
[19:27] * Beria (~Beria@wikimedia/Beria) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[19:28] <Chzz> ok
[19:28] <Ironholds> I think fabriceflorin is about to finish the first point
[19:28] <ToAruShiroiNeko> are we watching sopa still?
[19:28] <fabriceflorin> That's it for now. If you have any technical or development questions, feel free to email me at fflorin-at-wikimedia-dot-org.
[19:28] <Ironholds> ToAruShiroiNeko: indeed! But this isn't aimed at that, I'm afraid.
[19:28] <Chzz> question (in good faith): why don't we just put their comments on the talk page? I mean - automagically? so that 'normal' discourse can ensue
[19:29] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Am I correct in assuming that you want feedback just for how these versions performes technically, and not how it looks or phrases the questions?
[19:29] <Ironholds> Chzz: because then we have the problem of "how do they respond if they think markup sucks"
[19:29] <Chzz> sopa is off-topic
[19:29] <Ironholds> plus, talkpage architecture plus the volume of comments we could get equals melty.
[19:29] <Ironholds> Bensin: basically
[19:29] <Bensin> OK.
[19:29] <fabriceflorin> We are doing final testing today and plan to launch these forms next Monday 12-19 at 1pm PT, for testing on a limited set of 10,000 articles on the English Wikipedia. You can read more about all this on our AFTv5 project overview page:http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5
[19:29] <SpitfireWP> Ironholds, this feedback will presumably be made available to the community though, yes?
[19:30] <ToAruShiroiNeko> Ironholds there is no video on the link
[19:30] <Ironholds> ToAruShiroiNeko: sorry?
[19:30] <ToAruShiroiNeko> I am watching my walls instead as a result
[19:30] <Chzz> Ironholds no, wait; can't you just - user types "this page sucks balls" you could create a section on the talk, == Feedback from Bob == This page sucks balls ~~~~ (bob's sig)
[19:30] <shimgray> fabriceflorin: is it a random selection, or a specifically chosen one?
[19:30] <ToAruShiroiNeko> http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa
[19:30] <ToAruShiroiNeko> topic
[19:30] <fabriceflorin> shimgray, this is a random selection, prepared by DarTar.
[19:30] * Keegan (~chatzilla@wikimedia/Keegan) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:30] <Ironholds> Chzz: sure. And then how does Bob reply to any comments?
[19:30] <Chzz> Ironholds adv: a) I can edit it, b) they get used to talks, c) it's the 'wiki way', d) ...well, IDK. I can think of more
[19:30] <shimgray> right, like the original feedback set.
[19:30] <Chzz> do you get my idea?
[19:31] <DarTar> hey shimgray
[19:31] <Ironholds> and what happens to the talkpage when we get 3,000 bobs?
[19:31] <howief> so there will 10k randomly selected articles
[19:31] <DarTar> yes that's a 0.3% sample of randomly selected articles from the whole enwp (not including redirects)
[19:31] <howief> and then there will be a few hundred hand-picked high-traffic articles
[19:31] <fabriceflorin> If someone wants to propose a particular article that you would like us to add AFTv5 on, email Ironholds.
[19:31] <Ironholds> that's - a particular high-traffic article :)
[19:31] <howief> yup
[19:31] <DarTar> Ironholds: I suggest that we create a wiki page for this list
[19:32] <shimgray> yeah, I'm not sure the talkpage of Justin Bieber is going to scale to the feedback comments
[19:32] <DarTar> instead of mailing around
[19:32] <Ironholds> DarTar: that'd be the best approach :)
[19:32] <howief> problem with the 10k random sample is that many of them don't get very much traffic
[19:32] * geniice (~chatzilla@wikipedia/geniice) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:32] <Chzz> Ironholds well...what you do is... you ALSO make a message on bob's talk, == Your feedback about Foo == Hi. You left feedback about the article Foo, and that has been noted on Talk:Foo#Commment from Bob. You can check back there to see responses. -AND if IP, suggest 'create account'
[19:32] <howief> and as a result will only get a handful of comments
[19:32] <howief> also
[19:32] <fabriceflorin> Good idea, DarTar. Who wants to volunteer to do this on the WMF team?
[19:32] <Ironholds> Chzz: sure. but again, how do they respond? they hit edit, see 3,000 comments written in a crazy pseudo-html language
[19:32] <shimgray> (the page ratings box there reports almost 9000 ratings assigned, though I'm not sure if that's "ever" or "in last 30 edits")
[19:32] <Chzz> Ironholds I know that's a bit different from what you are doing but... think about it
[19:32] <Utar> this is getting worser than wikistream....
[19:32] <Ironholds> it's not about letting them know, it's about how much wikimarkup sucks :P
[19:32] <Chzz> Ironholds give 'em a link to edit that section
[19:32] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin: I'll shove it up when we work out the list :)
[19:32] <shimgray> Chzz: also, this hits problems with people blocked from editing (lots of users, for one reason or another)
[19:33] <DarTar> Ironholds: do you want to start this page? Or we could go ahead and just create a category as we did for AFT4 with the "additional list"
[19:33] <SpitfireWP> Or implement liquid threads
[19:33] * SpitfireWP whistles nonchalantly
[19:33] <Ironholds> DarTar: I'd suggest a page; easier to read and check
[19:33] <Chzz> shimgray yes, and blocked users shouldn't be able to edit. full stop.
[19:33] <shimgray> the last thing we want is for rating an article to result in you getting an angry block message
[19:33] <Ironholds> SpitfireWP: *bad*! *smacks with newspaper* :P
[19:33] <Chzz> SpitfireWP yes, ok; in 2013, yep
[19:33] <shimgray> Chzz: yeah, and remember how many ISP rangeblocks we have :-)
[19:33] <Ironholds> okay, can we cover the next bit in the schedule quickly?
[19:33] <GorillaWarfare> I'm kind of in favor of posting the feedback on a completely separate page
[19:33] <DarTar> Ironholds: good as a starter, but do we want to keep adding new articles�?
[19:33] <SpitfireWP> Chzz, better to spend time on something actually useful, rather than inaccessible feedback tools. >_>
[19:33] <DarTar> that's what happened with AFT4
[19:34] <Chzz> oh wait; what? rangeblocked IP's can leave feedback? O_O
[19:34] <Ironholds> I don't want us to get behind - and people like GorillaWarfare and Bensin and Utar aren't necessarily involved with this discussion but are helpful :)
[19:34] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: Huh, that's probably a bug
[19:34] <Ironholds> so can we move to something a bit more inclusive and on-topic?
[19:34] <RoanKattouw> Blocked users probably should not be able to leave feedback (IMO)
[19:34] <Ironholds> DarTar: want to discuss it in an emial thread so we don't have 30 convos going at once?
[19:34] <geniice> inclusive?
[19:34] <howief> corrrect
[19:34] <Chzz> SpitfireWP fuck yeah; of course. that's someth we can agree on
[19:34] <Chzz> gah, well, that's a bug
[19:34] <DarTar> Ironholds: sounds good
[19:34] <Chzz> someone poke reedy or someth
[19:34] <Ironholds> DarTar: cool :)
[19:34] <Ironholds> okay, next up; hand-coding!
[19:34] <Chzz> blocked is blocked. end of.
[19:35] <Chzz> do NOT let blocked users write ANYTHING except on their talk
[19:35] <Ironholds> despite the name, it doesn't involve coding. Apparently that's just the professional term for it.
[19:35] <Ironholds> from the school of thought that says "technical terms should confuse normal people".
[19:35] <Ironholds> (it's how programmers get their power)
[19:35] <Chzz> hell yeah
[19:35] <shimgray> Chzz: I'm a bit lost here. are you saying that everyone whose IP is currently blocked from editing shouldn't be allowed to rate articles?
[19:35] <fabriceflorin> If any of you is interested in conducting more detailed test, we would love some feedback on how AFTv4 and AFTv5 are co-existing on our pre-deployment environment. Does this work for you? http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing#AFTv4_vs._AFTv5_Test
[19:35] <Chzz> shimgray yes
[19:35] <shimgray> I'd assumed it was open-to-all-readers by definition.
[19:35] <Utar> Ironholds: yeah
[19:36] <Chzz> shimgray blocked is blocked. cannot say shit. until the block is dealt with. And that is VERY important
[19:36] <Chzz> that includes feedback
[19:36] <Ironholds> Utar: you're familiar with it, right? We were emailing back and forth.
[19:36] <fabriceflorin> Thanks to RoanKattouw for making all this work for this test. He's a magician!
[19:36] <Chzz> I do NOT want to deal with blocked users spouting their shit on feedback
[19:36] <Ironholds> Bensin, GorillaWarfare, how about you? Did I explain "hand-coding" in layman's terms?
[19:36] <shimgray> you do know that millions of readers are reading happily from blocked IPs without knowing anything about it, or having anything to do with the rangeblocks, right?
[19:36] <Utar> Ironholds: I was responding (slowly) to that "programers' school thing".
[19:36] <Chzz> shimgray ok, ok; you raise a good point that I had not considered properly
[19:37] <shimgray> this seems conceptually weird. what's the current status for blocked IPs giving feedback on the current version, V4?
[19:37] <Ironholds> Utar: ahh
[19:37] <shimgray> I am tempted to block my IP, log out and check :-)
[19:37] * Chzz thinks
[19:37] <GorillaWarfare> Ironholds: Erm, not sure... What is it, exactly?
[19:37] <fabriceflorin> And at the risk of being a bit nerdy, I also invite you to check that protected and semi-protected pages work as intended on this test: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing#Edit_CTA_Logic_Test
[19:37] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: well, during the test phase we'll (hopefully) get lots of comments from readers
[19:37] <Ironholds> which won't be publicly displayed, but will be stored on the toolserver
[19:38] <Ironholds> Aaron Halfaker (whose name I cannot spell, but he is wonderful) has created a tool so that volunteers can categorise these comments
[19:38] <geniice> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-coding AKA HTML for real men
[19:38] <Ironholds> so "sucky" "unsucky" "if sucky, then spam/vandalism/other/whatnot"
[19:38] <Utar> ahh, a chocolate cake
[19:38] <Ironholds> and then we take the categorisations and can work out which version of the form produces the best feeedback
[19:38] <GorillaWarfare> Oh, gotcha
[19:38] <Chzz> Ironholds + RoanKattouw this isn't all that long, so can u pls read it? it's relevent, re 'jargon' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&diff=466150304&oldid=466149158
[19:38] * Seddon (~chatzilla@Wikimedia/Seddon) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:38] <fabriceflorin> If the software works as intended, you will not get a call to action asking you to edit a semi-protected page or a protected page, but you will get a different call to action, asking you to help improve Wikipedia and take our new tutorial, created by Ironholds and Jorm. Splendid!
[19:39] <Chzz> lawks, a Seddon
[19:39] <Ironholds> Chzz: read. I agree with the basic point and dispute the conclusion, but that's for another time
[19:39] <Seddon> Chzz: Is there office hours?
[19:39] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin: actually, Moonriddengirl wrote it :)
[19:39] <Ironholds> I just stole it!
[19:39] <Seddon> Since Ironholds is rabbiting on I guess so
[19:39] <Chzz> shimgray you raise a v good point, re blocked. we need to discuss that. probably elsewhere/later
[19:39] <Ironholds> Seddon: you WORK here.
[19:39] <Chzz> is maggie not here?
[19:39] <fabriceflorin> Yay, Moonriddengirl !!!
[19:39] <Ironholds> Chzz: evidently not
[19:40] <Chzz> bah
[19:40] <Ironholds> she's probably working on something else
[19:40] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: I fail to see how that is at all relevant to AFTv5
[19:40] <Chzz> RoanKattouw sorry; which part is not relevent?
[19:40] <Seddon> Ironholds: Actually I work here in my house, I do not believe I am in your house.... May I ask the topic?
[19:40] <Ironholds> Seddon: Article Feedback Tool, version 5.
[19:41] <Seddon> Ironholds: Danke
[19:41] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: so are you interested in the hand-coding?
[19:41] <Utar> chzz: to many unreadeable acronyms
[19:41] <GorillaWarfare> Ironholds: Yes
[19:41] <Bensin> Ironholds: I am. How do I get started on hand coding?
[19:41] <kaldari> I just sent out my bike-shed suggestions in an email :)
[19:42] <Chzz> ok
[19:42] * mpeel (~mpeel@wikipedia/Mike-Peel) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[19:42] <howief> thanks kaldari
[19:42] <Ironholds> kaldari: awesome :)
[19:42] <Utar> RoanKattouw: perfect hit
[19:42] * jorm notices kaldari's email in his inbox; clicks "delete"
[19:42] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: It's about how WP has lots of confusing terminology (I agree; but how's that relevant to AFTv5?) and then concludes we need a new article incubator (which is an idea I like but don't feel strongly about; again, not at all related to AFTv5), and then concludes ACTRIAL needs to be implemented (I disagree; but again, relevance to AFTv5?)
[19:42] <kaldari> :P
[19:42] <Ironholds> Bensin/GorillaWarfare: basically, "drop me an email" :).
[19:42] <GorillaWarfare> Ironholds: Alrighty, can do
[19:42] <Utar> ...your email was dropped
[19:43] <Ironholds> it's scheduled to start on next Monday, I think?
[19:43] <Utar> into trash
[19:43] <Ironholds> that is, not this coming one - the one after
[19:43] <Ironholds> Utar: hehehe
[19:43] <Ironholds> okeyes@wikimedia.org :)
[19:43] <shimgray> Boxing Day?
[19:43] <Chzz> Utar yes. and RoanKattouw... I'm not in any way asking anything about that specific case; it's just an example of WP:WTF yeah?
[19:43] <Bensin> ok
[19:43] <shimgray> better you than me
[19:43] <fabriceflorin> Which of the three feedback forms do people here prefer, so far?
[19:43] <Ironholds> shimgray: you want to help out? :P
[19:43] <fabriceflorin> How many yays for http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=1
[19:44] <SpitfireWP> bucket 2 is better.
[19:44] <fabriceflorin> How many people like this Option 1 best?
[19:44] * Odisha1 (~wikiodish@wikimedia/odisha1) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:44] <Utar> yawning
[19:44] <fabriceflorin> How many people like Option 2 best? http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=2
[19:44] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: Yes, it highlights WP:WTFAREALLTHESEACRONYMS but again, how is that relevant to *AFTv5*
[19:44] <Chzz> fabriceflorin please can you list 1,2,3 whatever with links? just as one post, here?
[19:44] <shimgray> a vote for #2 here
[19:45] <Ironholds> Chzz: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=2 and then change the number at the end between 1, 2 and 3 :P
[19:45] <fabriceflorin> Thanks Spitfire and shimgray, why do you like option 2 best?
[19:45] <Utar> chzz: it is called a computer mouse with SCROLL WHEEL
[19:45] <Ironholds> shimgray: traitor! I picked 1
[19:45] <fabriceflorin> How many people like Option 3 best? http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=3:
[19:45] * PhancyPhysicist (~charles@cpe-107-9-220-27.neo.res.rr.com) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[19:45] <shimgray> fabriceflorin: I took a poll from the current occupants of the room :-)
[19:46] <GorillaWarfare> I like #2 the best as well
[19:46] * PhancyPhysicist (~charles@cpe-107-9-220-27.neo.res.rr.com) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:46] <Chzz> RoanKattouw 'coz the msgs we give need to be clear. not jargon
[19:46] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: how come?
[19:46] <fabriceflorin> Why is that, Gorilla?
[19:46] <Utar> me, 3 has stars from v4
[19:46] <SpitfireWP> fabriceflorin, it has the most adaptability, and it's more intuitive than #1.
[19:46] <shimgray> #2 is much better at indicating what sort of response you should give - it's priming you to say I like it because, I don't like it because, I think it's missing X
[19:46] <GorillaWarfare> The other two are very open-ended. Just "respond here", essentially, and a general rating tool. It will give the user a sort of starting question.
[19:46] <shimgray> #3 has the traditional problem of "wait, what's the system for stars? give it threes, whatever"
[19:46] <Chzz> Utar what? "[19:46] <Utar> chzz: it is called a computer mouse with SCROLL WHEEL"  ? please explain what you're saying. I *hope* you are not attacking me
[19:46] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: good point!
[19:46] <RoanKattouw> Chzz: OK, yeah, fair
[19:47] <SpitfireWP> Ironholds, in what form will any feedback be made public, if at all? (I'm still not really clear on this)
[19:47] * Beria (~Beria@wikimedia/Beria) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:47] <GorillaWarfare> It's the difference between being asked to write an essay on anything, or being given a specific prompt
[19:47] <fabriceflorin> Chzz, you can see all 3 forms here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Testing#What_to_test
[19:47] <Utar> chzz: you wanted something which was accesible by scrolling
[19:47] <Chzz> the gorilla makes a great deal of sense
[19:47] <Ironholds> SpitfireWP: we've only got a prelim design, but we can show you if you want?
[19:47] <Chzz> Utar ah :-) OK, cool, gotcha. thanks :-) sorry
[19:47] <SpitfireWP> Yeah, please.
[19:47] <Ironholds> SpitfireWP: cool :). fabriceflorin
[19:48] <Chzz> see how easy it is, to start a war over a misunderstanding? :-)
[19:48] <Utar> i didn't do that
[19:48] <Utar> whatever it was
[19:48] <shimgray> (okay, perhaps not priming. it lets the reader know what *kind* of responses are expected, rather than an open-ended comment-on-a-blog sort of thing)
[19:48] <Chzz> Utar which page can I wheel-scroll on? I don't see it
[19:48] <Utar> smigray: point
[19:49] <Utar> chzz: THIS
[19:49] <fabriceflorin> Spitfire, this is a VERY PRELIMINARY design, we plan to change everything next week: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Feedback_page
[19:49] <shimgray> (put #1 on the pop idol of the day, and you'll get a lot of OMG SPARKLY HEARTS comments)
[19:49] <Chzz> O_O
[19:49] <Utar> chzz: those links were posted 30 minutes back or so
[19:49] <Chzz> sorry. I'm a bit thick
[19:49] <Chzz> I missed it
[19:49] <shimgray> (see note above regarding how many people have rated Justin Bieber. Nine thousand!)
[19:49] <Chzz> what's the link to?
[19:49] <Ironholds> shimgray: very memeish
[19:49] <Ironholds> shimgray: point!
[19:50] <fabriceflorin> We will hold a special office hours after the holidays to discuss the feedback page. We didn't want to do everything at once, which is why we are rollling out features incrementally.
[19:50] <Utar> --
[19:50] <Chzz> ...
[19:50] <Ironholds> SpitfireWP, Chzz: you'll note the mark as abuse/hide function already in the works :)
[19:50] <Chzz> sorry. I'm clearly incompetent. But I do not know what the "1,2,3" choices are. Sorry sorry
[19:50] <fabriceflorin> I often say there is a reason why the future was invented: to make sure that not everything would be happening at the same time ;o)
[19:50] <Utar> Ironhold: good
[19:50] <Utar> Ironhold: make some ammo
[19:51] <GorillaWarfare> Ironholds: Who's in charge of deciding which should be hidden/removed?
[19:51] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare: "we don't know yet". I'm hoping that if we have just hide/unhide, we can put the bar as low as possible (say, all autoconfirmed/all rollbackers)
[19:51] * James_F|Busy (~James@wikimedia/JamesF) has joined #wikimedia-office
[19:51] <Ironholds> but that'd just be for "THIS ARTICLE IS SHIT RAAARGH"
[19:51] <Ironholds> obviously "I will stab the article subject and eat his eyeballs" would get special treatment via suppression.
[19:52] <Chzz> make a new user-right; that'll make the kiddies interested, and hence it'd be 'patrolled'
[19:52] <shimgray> (do we have a list of most-rated articles at the moment?)
[19:52] <fabriceflorin> Our approach with developing this feature is to go really slowly, involving the community at each step of the time.
[19:52] <Ironholds> shimgray: DarTar would know this?
[19:53] <Ironholds> one final point; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Help
[19:53] <DarTar> shimgray: http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft3/
[19:53] <fabriceflorin> I want to thank everyone for all your great contributions on this project. It's such a privilege to be designing this feature with so many smart folks like you!
[19:53] <howief> is justin bieber still #1?
[19:53] <shimgray> DarTar: cool, thanks
[19:53] <Ironholds> that's an FAQ I'm working up for readers/editors for the deployed version. What does it need to cover, you lot think, that it doesn't now?
[19:53] <shimgray> howief: is it? hee! I just guessed that arbitrarily
[19:53] <Chzz> srsly tho, Ironholds: make a group. "Feedback helpers" or some shit. the hat-collectors will love it, and flock to it; you'll get lots of input.  ??? profit
[19:53] <Utar> chzz: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?bucket=1 --- 1 for 1, 2 for 2, 3 for 3 on the end
[19:53] <howief> shimgray: i think it was at one point :)
[19:54] <Ironholds> Chzz: Step 1, collect underpants
[19:54] <Chzz> Utar aha! gotcha. thanks
[19:54] * James_F|Away (~James@wikimedia/JamesF) Quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[19:55] <Utar> chzz: here is a videotutorial for that: http://www.kongregate.com/games/Rete/dont-shit-your-pants
[19:55] <DarTar> en:Justin Bieber deserves a PhD dissertation
[19:56] <DarTar> seriously
[19:56] <howief> haha
[19:56] <Utar> dartar: yes
[19:56] <DarTar> it's also the article that currently generates the largest number of mood posts by new users
[19:56] <shimgray> Born This Way looks like a textbook example of ratingspam...
[19:56] <Chzz> 1. It's not clear that it is not part of the article; it needs to be more distinct, e.g. a coloured box. The button outlines too faint. "Help improve this article" is a bit shit; just "Comment" is better. "post your feedback" is hard to read; pastel-colours like that are shit, esp for users with sight-problems. Does this thing deal with accessibility?
[19:57] <DarTar> which presumably means that an ugly lot of users try to register an account when visiting the JB article
[19:57] <Chzz> 2. better, with the 'speech box' but the word "praise" is horrible. Religious overtones
[19:58] <shimgray> DarTar: truly, it inspires them to greater things! maybe we should bring him on board as a recruitment tool.
[19:58] <Utar> Ironholds: "Who exactly are "editors"?"
[19:58] <Ironholds> Utar: yup?
[19:58] <Chzz> 3. mad duplication of "Help improve this article" and "Is this article helpful?"
[19:58] <Utar> what about those using Edit by sections?
[19:58] <Ironholds> Chzz: agreed; we'll be experimenting with text later
[19:58] <Chzz> and then again a "add a comment". telling same thing 3 times
[19:59] <Ironholds> Utar: that's not being tested initially, but I'll update the FAQ as and when we test it :)
[19:59] <DarTar> shimgray: that's our atomic bomb solution for the new editor engagement program ;)
[19:59] <Chzz> so 2 is best, but ditch the 'praise' shit.
[19:59] <Chzz> IMHO, obv
[19:59] <Utar> Ironholds: I though "Edit this section" already works???
[19:59] <shimgray> DarTar: actually, this may explain it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Justin+Bieber - very highly viewed page, and more or less permanently semiprotected
[19:59] <Utar> not "Feedback this section"
[19:59] <Ironholds> Utar: oh, sorry! I thought you meant the [feedback] things
[19:59] <shimgray> they hit "edit" to add their OMG JUSTIN comment, find they have to register...
[19:59] <Ironholds> argh. Looks like I have to go.
[19:59] <fabriceflorin> By everyone, happy holidays!
[20:00] <Ironholds> okay, thanks to everyone for their feedback
[20:00] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Bye. Happy holidays!
[20:00] <Utar> Ironholds: OK, it is too high for basic HELP file
[20:00] <Ironholds> I'll be back on IRC around 9pm UTC-ish, and if anyone has any longer questions, drop me a note at okeyes@wikimedia.org
[20:00] <DarTar> shimgray: not only it's one of the top viewed articles but also one of the top viewed articles whose readers go through the bother of registering an account
[20:00] <Ironholds> GorillaWarfare, thanks for sending the hand-coding thing. Just received it :)
[20:00] <Ironholds> take care!
[20:00] <DarTar> shimgray: correct
Session Close: Fri Dec 16 20:00:34 2011