IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-01-06
<fabriceflorin> So I recommend we spend 5-10 mins. on handcoding, then about the same amount of time on feedback link and access to tools, leading to our Request for Comments.
<Ironholds> the idea here being that it's not enough to just know what form produces the most feedback, we need to know what form produces the *best* feedback
<Ironholds> and the best people to tell us that are editors
<Utar> but only the best one :D
<fabriceflorin> Hehe Utar.
<Ironholds> so we had around 5 volunteers coding several hundred pieces of feedback. And seriously, I was blown away.
<Ironholds> we were like "oh, it should take around 40 minutes for someone to do that set of feedba-wait, what, they want more? now? 5 minutes later?"
<Utar> Bensin, come out of hiding
<Ironholds> you guys were awesome, and we are so grateful :)
<Ironholds> Bensin, is only one of the culprits, actually! But he did do a really large chunk
<Ironholds> now, good news and bad news from this. the good news is, we've got a lot of great data out of this. the bad news is there isn't enough data for us to statistically say whether 1 is better than 2, or 3, or so on
<Ironholds> I mean, we can say it with 80 probability, which SOUNDS great, but I am informed we need more
<Utar> Iroholds, in fact it seem to me it toke more time to get the link to new chunk than to handcode it
<DarTar> yeah, if we want to have standard confidence levels, we need more help
<Ironholds> so we're going to be doing another hand-coding session fairly soon - we haven't quite worked out the details yet - and we'd like as many volunteers as possible
-->| toryread (45b5bdb0@gateway/web/freenode/ip.188.8.131.52) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Ironholds> so tell your friends! your family! everyone who owes you a beer! :P
<Ziko> the people from the coaching programme may like to join that
<Utar> there is a lot of them :D
<Ironholds> and this session will be getting more data on the different versions of the form, but will also be getting data on the new place we're going to stick the form
<Ironholds> Utar, I believe I'm one of the people who owes you beer. If I wasn't pre-handcoding, I am now ;p
<DarTar> Ziko, what program is that?
<Doug_Weller> I said I'd do more but didn't get more
<Ziko> those people who help newbies, or what is their name in en.wp?
<fabriceflorin> I should add that it is a lot of fun. That
<DarTar> Ironholds: and we will also get data from the additional articles, not just the random sample
<Ziko> mentoren on de.wp, coaches on nl.wp
<Utar> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coaching ?
<Ironholds> DarTar, indeed
<DarTar> Ziko: got it
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, yeah, we literally ran out of feedback :
<Ziko> oh, it's adopt an user
<DarTar> right eight, the mentorship program
<Doug_Weller> good work then
<fabriceflorin> Handcoding is what I do to relax at the end of the day. I highly recommend it.
<Utar> so fluffy
<Ironholds> fabriceflorin, I thought that was answering emails at 2am? I keep having to tell you to go to sleep
<Ziko> so handcoding means to put a label on a feedback note, done by experienced users
<Ironholds> Ziko, basically
<fabriceflorin> I am amazed by the quality and thoughtfulness of the feedback we're getting. I was not expecting them to be as useful ;o)
<Ironholds> I have no idea who called it handcoding way back in programming history
<Ironholds> all I know is I want them dead.
<Ironholds> anyway! So, there'll be a second hand-coding session, getting more data on the forms, but also testing a new placement.
<fabriceflorin> Yeah, I prefer to call it feedback evaluation, myself ;o)
<Ziko> well, the polish were quite happy with their commentary function, so i am not very surprised
<Bensin> Ironholds: Are we also tweaking with phrasing of questions?
|<-- toryread has left freenode (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
<Ironholds> Bensin, yup, but later. We want to know what form we're going with first
<Utar> ziko: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcode
<Utar> FES = HCS
<Bensin> Ironholds: I still think we should have one that just says "How can this article be improved". No stars, no smileys. Just ask for feedback. Clean and simple.
<Doug_Weller> I like that
<Utar> no kities either
<Ironholds> Bensin, that would be great to test, but a tthe moment we have to focus on knowing which form works best
<Ironholds> if we start tweaking wordings as well, we get a ton more variables and testing becomes incredibly complex
<Ironholds> instead of 3 variables, we tweak one thing and we have 9, then 21, and so on.
<DarTar> (especially as we have a small sample of articles)
<Bensin> Ironholds: That could very well be my very suggestion :-)
<Utar> now it is OH, then it would be WOW
<Bensin> Ironholds: Well, my suggestion need no tweaking...
<Ironholds> Bensin, this is true!
<Utar> DarTar, make a new line
<Ironholds> A bit back on topic; the hand-coding session, you can sign up for at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/Feedback_evaluation
<Ironholds> (I've blanked names from existing editors to avoid confusion)
<Ironholds> and please, get everyone you can think of involved!
<Ironholds> we're going to have a ton of stuff to do, and I don't want any of you burning out
<Ironholds> *from earlier people who signed up. fail.
<Ironholds> this hand-coding will be so we can settle which form works the best, and also so we can test the new placement
<Ironholds> fabriceflorin, would you like to talk about the placement?
<DarTar> every time we implement and deploy a tweak that means ore overheads for developers, a few more days of work to get it coded, reviewed and deployed, and we have to be diligent about what to test in this phase
<fabriceflorin> I highly recommend trying to do this feedback evaluation hand-coding. It's a great way to find out what our readers think -- and it helps us improve the tools to give them a voice, as well as an on-ramp for future participation.
<fabriceflorin> Yes, thanks Oliver. To invite more user feedback, we recommend adding a prominent 'Feedback' link or button above the fold on article pages.
<DarTar> I wish we could a/b test every single aspect of the UI but I'm afraid we don't have the bandwidth to do that
<fabriceflorin> We are not getting as much participation as we'd like to evaluate the quality of the feedback and this would help us do that.
<fabriceflorin> For discussion purposes, we have prepared a mockup that shows 8 different placement ideas for the feedback link on article pages.
<fabriceflorin> Based on our current evaluation, only a couple of these ideas appear practical to implement at this time, for a variety of technical reasons.
<fabriceflorin> Option B has serious collision issues with geo-tags. Option C either overlaps with content or requires adding a margin. And we had issues with all the options on the left side of the page (F and G), because they don't relate to the article and obscure these links.
<fabriceflorin> Here's the link againL http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Feedback_links
<Bensin> <fabriceflorin> We are not getting as much participation as we'd like to evaluate the quality of the feedback <--- Are you referring to the hand coders?
<fabriceflorin> And as much as we loved Option H, which Utar recommended, it introduces a lot of visual clutter is likely to confuse users. Plus, we we cannot figure out how to exclude that link from sections where it would not be meaningful, like References or External Links. Sorry, Utar :(
<Ironholds> (this sucks. I loved option H)
<Ironholds> Bensin, basically. All of you rocked; the problem was I didn't recruit enough people :(
<Utar> it should be only [feedback], not so long
|<-- Odisha1 has left freenode ()
<fabriceflorin> Me too. It was high on my list, but we have to be practical, to move the project along. This is just the first test ;o)
<fabriceflorin> After that first test, we would like to test some other feedback links, like Option A or B (if we can resolve the geo-tag issues for B).
<Utar> and in fact References or External Links - you can feedback them too
<Utar> if you want to point on one ExtLi which is not working then eh? feedback the whole page?
<fabriceflorin> Our hope is to release this first test on Wednesday, Jan. 11.
<Bensin> Ironholds: How can you not have recruited enough people if several of us ran out of work? I only got one refill... :-)
<Ironholds> Bensin, that was a different problem; we literally didn't have enough feedback
<Ironholds> because the tool had only been running for a week
<fabriceflorin> What do you guys think of these options? And specifically, what do you think of Option D? Or Option A?
<Ironholds> but now we have tons and tons of feedback, and we need the people to match it :)
<Ziko> one of the main values of AFT is emotionally binding people to wikipedia, "giving them a say", "make 'em a part of it". i wonder how this could be improved, rather by a "did you know you can edit". people don't edit for good reasons, more than just not knowing
<DarTar> plus, we didn't handcode the additional articles at all
<Utar> so you could tell on of us to go through those feedbacked pages aand make more
<Ironholds> Utar, we could, but that would still not defeat the problem of "we need more editors so we have a wider range of views"
<fabriceflorin> Good point, Ziko. We hope to test other calls to action. One idea that appeals to me is 'Share what you know', encouraging them to identify topics they know about.
<DarTar> Ziko, we're actually planning some really cool engagement experiments
-->| Beria (~Beria@wikimedia/Beria) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Ziko> oh, great
<Utar> Ironholds: but i would make more chunks for Bensin :D
<DarTar> for example getting them involved in conversations on talk pages, if/when their feedback gets "promoted"
<Ziko> i wonder how to give readers a reason to register and have benefits from that...
<howief> Ziko: yes, that's the idea
<Utar> "but it"
<Ironholds> Utar, hahaha
<Doug_Weller> I probably should have said this earlier, but just asking 'How can this article be improved' might weed out fanboys/haters people who just want to comment on the subject, etc - it focuses on what we need to learn
|<-- howief has left freenode (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
<fabriceflorin> Any comments on Option D? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT5-Feedback-Link-Option-D-12-28.png
-->| matthewrbowker (~matthewrb@wikipedia/matthewrbowker) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: The most logical place is F, but that would probably generate too little data for the AFT-project to be useful at all.
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, that's true! it's the reason I hedged a bet on 1
<Utar> status bar!
<Ironholds> because the question was the narrowest
<matthewrbowker> Sorry about that, client fail :P
-->| howief (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
<DarTar> Ziko: something like "you made 0x1c0x1ca great suggestion, now why don't you go ahead and register an account so you can follow the discussion "
<fabriceflorin> We thought that Option D might be the easiest option to implement, and give us the most participation, while being the least disruptive, because it's at the bottom right corner.
<Utar> fabriceflorin: It was hiding under Status Bar for me
<DarTar> (we will experiment with email notifications)
<Ironholds> Utar, status bar?
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: There's a lot to be said (pros and cons) about all options.
<Utar> of internet browser
<Ironholds> Bensin, it's true. It was kinda narrow
<Ironholds> Utar, : Option...?~
<Utar> Ironholds, I sended you screenshots
<Doug_Weller> I don't like 'Add a note', it's confusing
<Utar> and bytheway you have another email
<Ironholds> Utar, oh, that! cool
<Ironholds> oh, and I read your earlier email - I actually saw the initial query and emailed dario, but he never got back to me
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: And the choice of positioning is something the community might have valuable input on.
<Ironholds> so... DarTar, where's the AFT4 data dumps stored? ;p
<DarTar> but there are a few dumps missing
<Utar> and that's all?
<howief> to clarify option D
<DarTar> I'll generate myself a new, complete dump and we'll share it via one of the new open data repos we're testing ;)
<howief> this would be docked to the browser window
<fabriceflorin> Yes, Bensin, we plan to do a full test with different placement options later this month. But for now, our first priority is to get one prominent link going, starting with Option D, which would be docked to the browser window.
<howief> so if you scroll down, the link would still be visible
<fabriceflorin> Like this we can get more data on the feedback forms, which is our first priority.
<howief> The alternative would be to stick in on a portion of the page
<DarTar> Ironholds: what query was that?
<Utar> howief: I don't have problems with D but you should make sure it is not hiding below Satus BAr.
<howief> which could then permanently obscure content
<Utar> Ironholds, did you resended those screenshots?
<Ironholds> DarTar, it was "where to find the AFT4 dumps"
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: I'm sorry... I think docking it to the window puts more emphasis on the AFT than the edit button. Wouldn't we rather have people edit than give feedback?
<howief> Utar: ok -- i'm still not entirely clear, but i understand you sent screenshots so we can take a look
<Ironholds> Utar, they may have got lost :S. I'll find them as soon as this is concluded and pass them on. Sorry! Everything is a bit hectic at the moment
<fabriceflorin> My recommendation is that we try out Option D next week, then talk about it in the next IRC chat. Then we can make more informed decisions about which other placements to test. OK with you guys?
<howief> Bensin: that's a good point
<DarTar> ic – I received a few messages last week from people asking for fresh AFT4 data (both researchers and community members), I'll generate new dumps as soon as possible and announce them on wiki-research-l
<howief> one of the things we're going to have to do is to measure whether this shifts behavior to favor feedback vs. editing
<Ironholds> Bensin, can I answer that at the end? We have a tight schedule :(
<fabriceflorin> We would now like to turn your attention to the feedback page and specifically to different ways that users can flag, hide or delete questionable posts.
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: sure.
<fabriceflorin> Thanks, Bensin, I really appreciate your willingness to go one step at a time on this ;o)
<fabriceflorin> You can see the latest wireframes on our feature requirements page:
<fabriceflorin> The feedback page will show feedback posts for a given article. Its contents will vary for different user groups, as outlined below:
<fabriceflorin> • Basic feedback page (reader view)
<fabriceflorin> • Advanced feedback page (editor view)
<Utar> DarTar: I don't need fresh dumps. I needed answers. We are planning to start some AFT on cs.wiki and are evaluating posilbilities.
<fabriceflorin> We have preliminary wireframes for each version on the feature requirements page.
<tommorris> ooh, did I miss the thing?
<fabriceflorin> The general idea is that readers would get fewer tools than editors with rollback or oversight privileges.
<DarTar> Utar, wanna ping me after the session so we can discuss it?
<fabriceflorin> This section on access and permissions shows what we would like to discuss with you in today's IRC chat:
<Utar> DarTar: I will be here
<fabriceflorin> Different views for different user groups are shown on this comparative wireframe.
<Utar> tommorris: which thing? we are discussing AFT5
<Doug_Weller> Admins can'[t delete?
<fabriceflorin> And if you scroll below the wireframe, you can see a preliminary table showing proposed access levels for each user group.
<fabriceflorin> Please note that this matrix is for discussion purposes only and is likely to change based on responses from the community as well as Wikimedia decision-makers.
<fabriceflorin> Some features listed on that matrix are still under consideration and may not be included in our first releases. This chart is based in part on this page for Wikipedia-EN User Access Levels.
<fabriceflorin> Our overall goal is to tie-in with existing Wikipedia user groups and processes, rather than create new processes from scratch.
<Utar> last point to positioning Feedback link: IMHO there should be more variants so you can hide/move it through Preferences
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, it's a difference in terminology
<tommorris> Utar: I thought it was office hours that I was just about to miss ;-)
<fabriceflorin> For example, the current 'rollbacker' group (users with rollback permissions) would be enabled to hide (or show) offensive posts, as well as view hidden posts.
<fabriceflorin> And the current 'oversight' group would have the right to permanently delete (or undelete) posts containing illegal material (e.g. posts with links to child pornography).
<Doug_Weller> Ok, sorry about that (and sorry about my commenta bout 'Add a note', I thought that was the feedback link which I finally found and looked ok)#
<fabriceflorin> These ideas are for discussion purposes only, and will be the subject of an upcoming Request for Comments, to be posted by Oliver later today.
<Utar> tommorris: we are just getting to core, just read and ask if youu need somethign
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, naw, it's our terminology mess :)
<Ironholds> basically, delete = oversight
|<-- howief has left freenode (Read error: Operation timed out)
<Ironholds> (I appreciate that a delete button admins can't use is confusing. Don't worry, you'll have a function to remove things, called hide)
<Ottava> Doug Weller? o.O
<fabriceflorin> Thanks for the clarification, Ironholds. We will make any necessary adjustments to include the word oversight for that function.
-->| Philippe (~Philippe@184.108.40.206) has joined #wikimedia-office
=-= Jhs is now known as jsoby
|<-- Philippe has left freenode (Changing host)
-->| Philippe (~Philippe@wikimedia/Philippe) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Doug_Weller> Ok, I guess, but you need to be sure it's ok with the Oversight people- I mean that they won't have a large extra burden, I'm not clear why Admins wouldn't be able to do it just as they do rev/del
|<-- Moonriddengirl has left freenode (Read error: Connection timed out)
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, you'll have a revdel-like function, don't worry
<Doug_Weller> ok, i thought it was rollbackers who were being given that, and some I've seen....
<Ironholds> the issue is more "there are some things where revdel just isn't good enough, and for that we need oversight, and for that we need foundation-verified people"
<Ironholds> general counsel decision, not me :)
<Ironholds> but it's icky things like child porn and defamation
<Philippe> and a general counsel function that I support. (hi everyone!)
<Ironholds> speaking as an admin, I wouldn't want to be able to see them ;p
<Ottava> These problems would all go away if everyone had to be verified by the Foundation just to join
<tommorris> depends on who is being defamed ;-)
<Ottava> It is bad enough that we have people like Phillipe...
<Ottava> I mean
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, and thank you for providing a perfect segue!
<Ottava> Oh Hi Philippe :P
<Philippe> Ottava :P
<Philippe> Just rude :P
<tommorris> :unignore Ottava
<Ironholds> the hide tool will definitely be able to be used by admins
<Ironholds> it will also maaaybe be useable by rollbackers.
<Ottava> How many hiding tools do admin need?
<fabriceflorin> Thanks, Utar, your point about trying different placement variations is duly noted and much appreciated. We hope to do that test by the end of January.
<Ironholds> that's one of the things we're going to look at in a Request for Comment we've just opened :)
<Doug_Weller> What was that o.O comment to me supposed to mean?
<Ottava> Doug_Weller - yes, I'm surprised to see you on IRC :P
<Ironholds> which everyone can find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Request_for_Comment
-->| Moonriddengirl (~chatzilla@wikipedia/Moonriddengirl) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Doug_Weller> I've been participating in the feedback hand coding
<Utar> fabriceflorin: I asked for more places from which any registered user can freely choose. or tottaly hide it
<Ottava> I think it would be important if we add new bits to think about adding a new permission to get instead of tacking it onto old permissions.
<Philippe> Ah, i do love a good RfC
- Philippe strolls to go look at it.
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, Utar, Bensin, take a look at the questions and issues and comment on whatever you feel comfortable expressing an opinion on :)
-->| howief (~email@example.com) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Ironholds> Utar, that is on the to-do list
<Doug_Weller> I agree with Ottava
<Utar> ok, thanks
<tommorris> where is the RfC?
<Ottava> Admin should be split a little, at least, don't give admin power over everything. Have specialized people that are voted on that.
<Ironholds> so, for the little option D thing, we're looking at an X button on the tab itself so you can kill it.
<Ironholds> tommorris, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Request_for_Comment
<Philippe> Ottava, can we agree that is not a decision for the tool design folks?
<Ottava> Philippe - I have no idea what that means to be honest. :P
<Philippe> That's a decision for the WP community. The Foundation shouldn't (and wouldn't) attempt to usurp that.
<Ironholds> I r codemonkey assistant. I should not be making a decision on whether admins are democratic folk ;p
<Ottava> The RevDel bit was created by the tool people and then kinda just appeared as an admin feature one day. I don't remember a discussion. I just want to avoid a situation lik ethat.
<fabriceflorin> Thanks Ironholds, this Request for Comments lpage looks really good. We also appreciate the great help we got from Philippe Beaudette and Maggie Dennis in preparing this page.
<Philippe> aww shucks
<Ironholds> mostly Maggie
<Ironholds> in fact, Philippe was generally a spanner in the works
<Ottava> Philippe is rewarded enough with money, booze, and lots of women. He doesn't need IRC praise too. :P
<Philippe> oh wow.
<Doug_Weller> I was thinking of tacking hide onto rollbackers, not Admins
<Bensin> Ironholds: Maybe rollbacker's view should also have a "Flag for deletion"?
<Ironholds> Bensin, yeah, that's the question!
<Doug_Weller> That might work
<Ironholds> wait, are we talking almost an important mark-for-oversight button?
<Doug_Weller> Rollbackers could request it
<Ottava> Maybe the rollbacker should be turned into a new permission along the line of "reviewer" with the different flags that go into the review/content process.
<Ironholds> yeah, we're working on that :)
<Ironholds> (re Doug_Weller and Bensin
<Utar> we got it
<tommorris> anyone granted rollbacker while the PC trial was going was usually given the reviewer flag with it. there is considerable overlap
<Bensin> Ironholds: Yes. A rollbacker reviewed an abusive post and want an oversighter to have a look at it and eventually delete it.
<Ironholds> Bensin, exactly!
<Ironholds> we're working on precisely that. Great minds... :)
<Bensin> Oh. OK. Sorry :-)
<Ottava> So, rollbackers will become middle bureaucrats. Hmm.
<Utar> so there will be new tab for Feedback?
<fabriceflorin> Yes, Bensin, we also think it would make sense to give rollbackers the same access to 'Flag this for abuse', as shown on the Request for Comments page. The full version of the comparative wireframe is on this page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Access_and_permissions
<Ottava> Can we make them fill out weekly reports in triplicate? :)
- Philippe is gonna have to order more of form 53 stroke C
<DarTar> Bensin, Utar – I have a few more minutes if you want to discuss AFT data stuff --> wanna move to wikimedia-rcom for this? I'll have to take off in a moment
<Ironholds> Philippe, remember to use 3822/b to order them
<fabriceflorin> What do you guys think of this gradual access to tools based on user levels? Does it generally work for you?
- tommorris thinks the permissions question becomes more complicated given the potential for abuse of 'hiding' if rollbackers are granted it
<Ironholds> tommorris, it does, but look at it this way
<tommorris> so, how it currently is, if someone screws up with rollback, we can remove rollback
|<-- howief has left freenode (Quit: howief)
<Ironholds> we're giving 3,000 people the ability to hide, unhide and view hidden
<tommorris> and same with other sub-admin stuff like file mover
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: What I meant was that rollbacker's "flag as abuse" be replaced with "flag for deletion".
<fabriceflorin> Utar, we are not sure if a new tab for feedback is warranted yet. We're proceeding very cautiously, and will initially start with a link on the feedback forms.
<Ironholds> but if 1 chooses to misuse it...that's 2,999 people who can notice and correct
<Ironholds> tommorris, and that wouldn't change
<Ironholds> believe me, we have no wish to mess with internal processes
<tommorris> which means either (a) if they screw up with AFT hiding, are we gonna remove their rollback? or (b) are we going to let people run riot on AFT hiding because we dare not remove their rollback as it's an unrelated tool
<tommorris> either way, pain
<matthewrbowker> What about a seperate flag?
-->| howief (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
<tommorris> there is an alternative of course: a new user right for 'feedback moderation'
<fabriceflorin> So after you post your feedback, we would thank you for your post, and give you a link to the feedback page. As the feedback page matures in coming weeks, we will start looking at more prominent links to that feedback page.
<Bensin> fabriceflorin: If a rollbacker wants to hide a comment he can do it himself, but he might not think that's enough, and instead she wants an oversighter to have a look at it.
<Moonriddengirl> tommorris, those might be excellent points for the RfC. :)
<tommorris> and then you seed that by basically selecting all users who have rollback and, say, no blocks or something like that
<tommorris> but then you get the community shouting about not wanting the admin equivalents of Police Community Support Officers ("plastic bobbies")
<Utar> fabriceflorin: I was pointing to "Comparsion to Hebrew Wikipedia article feedback" where Eran said they have it in talk page
<Ironholds> tommorris, that is an excellent point
<tommorris> and admins will have to handle all the screwups anyway, so you may as well just hand more work to the admins
<Ironholds> tommorris, so, that's the wrong dichotomy
<fabriceflorin> Tom, good suggestion. We would love to get some creative ideas on how to solve this issue from you guys.
<Ottava> This seems way too complicated
- tommorris thought this was more a "you are gonna be screwed whatever way you go" rather than a creative idea for improvmeent.
<Ironholds> it's not letting them be versus taking their rights away. it's whether we say "okay, this is how your rules about rollback should work" or let the community come up with a solution
<Ironholds> and we'd rather let you come up with a solution. We trust you guys, and we know what our limits are
<Ironholds> and if that solution is, say, just unbundling the rights, that's cool :)
<tommorris> the Foundation show more trust in the community nto screwing up than I do ;-)
<matthewrbowker> Might just be as easy as creating a seprate userright.
<Ironholds> matthewrbowker, that's true. So suggest that in the RfC! :)
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: RfC?
<tommorris> or just having 'flag for deletion' and then having an admin check it over
<Ironholds> matthewrbowker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Request_for_Comment :)
<Ironholds> damn. snap!
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: kk
<Ironholds> tommorris, flag for hiding
<Doug_Weller> My biggest concern is BLP violations. This makes them much easier to add to an article and it will, I think, take quite a bit of work to get rid of them
<Ironholds> (we SO need to tweak the internal language with this)
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, that's actually why we really want rollbackers, or some slightly larger pool than admins, to be able to do something about it
<Ironholds> I'm an editor, and a rollbacker, and an admin. and I wouldn't want the entire job of policing to just be on admins.
<Doug_Weller> Right now people have to edit first, in the future they can put anything they want into feedback about some singer, politician, whatever that they ahte
<Ironholds> expanding who has access gives us a way to spread the burden
|<-- StevenW has left freenode ()
<tommorris> are there any plans for basically having it so if we have people who repeatedly post crap on AFT, putting them into limbo mode - having it so they think their comment has gone up but it is going for moderation?
<Doug_Weller> I wish the RfC mentioned BLP, not just verbal abuse
<Ironholds> tommorris, better!
<Ironholds> if someone is blocked, they're blocked
<Ironholds> if someone posts crap on AFT5, they can't post. it
<Ironholds> *it's as simple as that.
<Ironholds> same as if they messed with BLPs through an edit.
<fabriceflorin> I'd like to thank everyone for all this great feedback, and turn this over to Oliver to discuss the RfC with you all. As always, this process is really useful, and I much appreciate all your thoughtful contributions. Speak to you again on the next chat, ideally next Friday. We'll have more to discuss with you, and Oliver/Ironholds will summarize all your great insights.
<Doug_Weller> How do we make that clear?
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, that they're not allowed to be mean about people? ;p
<Ironholds> well, I'd hope it would be implicit
<tommorris> would they just be blocked from AFT or from editing too?
<Doug_Weller> That would be nice but unrealistic
<tommorris> because I think 'limbo' might be a better alternative to blocking
<Ironholds> tommorris, from both. the alternative is both too complex and overrides what the community has already said about blocking as a policy
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, well, do we do anything for vandals?
<Doug_Weller> But it is a reason that the link needs to say 'how can we improve the article' rather than just inviting comments
|<-- Beria has left freenode (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
- tommorris doesn't exactly relish having to deal with unblock requests from people who are pissed off about how they've been blocked because they told the AFT that "Justin Bieber is ghey!"
<tommorris> Article Feedback Tool
<Doug_Weller> It's the possible volume that concerns me, plus tommorris's comment just now
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, of course. We should totally make clear that it's commenting on the article, not the subject.
<Doug_Weller> It should say that explicitly, that might help
<Ironholds> that's a good point
- Ironholds scribbles it down
<Ironholds> (I write a big-ass report for everyone after each IRC session. I shall ensure this is included)
<Doug_Weller> Much appreciated
<Ironholds> that's what the doctor treating my RSI said ;p
<fabriceflorin> OK, guys, bye for now!
<tommorris> thanks fabriceflorin, Ironholds, Philippe
<Ironholds> take care, fabriceflorin. Thanks for chatting :)
<Ironholds> okay, two minutes. I need caffeine and a smoke ;p
<Ironholds> then I'll be back for my usual random natterings
<fabriceflorin> You're very welcome, Tommorris, and thanks for your good suggestions. Speak to you again next Friday!
<DarTar> bye folks
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: I've never participated in an RfC. Do you want comments inline or at the bottom?
<tommorris> matthewrbowker: in the relevant sections
<matthewrbowker> DarTar: bye
|<-- howief has left freenode (Quit: howief)
<fabriceflorin> Does any one have a log of this entire chat they could share with us? Due to a snafu, we only have the second half right now. If so, please share it with Ironholds. Cheers!
- tommorris can probably dig it out
-->| howief (~email@example.com) has joined #wikimedia-office
<fabriceflorin> Thanks, Tom. There were some really good ideas in that chat, which we don't want to lose track of. Oliver usually does that, but was caught in a London cab from hell ;o)
<tommorris> that's where all London cabs come from.
<tommorris> either that or King's Cross.
<tommorris> but I repeat myself.
<DarTar> fabriceflorin: I can send IronHolds the full log
<DarTar> off now, bbl
|<-- DarTar has left freenode (Quit: DarTar)
<fabriceflorin> Fantastic, DarTar, much appreciated!
<fabriceflorin> OK, over and out. Thanks again, and see you next week!
|<-- fabriceflorin has left freenode (Quit: fabriceflorin)
<tommorris> I'm seeing Ironholds tomorrow, so if he hasn't got them, I can always retrieve them from my scrollback
<Utar> ok, i am back
<Utar> anything for me?
-->| log (~log@wikimedia/Logan) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Bensin> Utar: Ironholds getting coffee and a smoke.
<Bensin> (perhaps not for us though...)
<Utar> as always
-->| varnent (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #wikimedia-office
<Utar> Bensin: I was talking with DarTar about startinf AFT on cs.wiki.
<Utar> nothing again
<Ironholds> I managed to fall down the stairs
<Utar> that's easy
<Utar> I managed to fall up the stairs once
<Ironholds> matthewrbowker, comments go where comments sections are :)
<Ironholds> Utar, okay, that's kinda impressive
<Ironholds> AFT5 on cswiki would be bloody awesome
<Utar> no more than your team
<Ironholds> although we would want to get all the kinks worked out first
<Ironholds> Utar, aww!
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: Sorry, first time :)
<Ironholds> matthewrbowker, oh, that's probably a good thing
<Ironholds> most RfCs are about users being mean or whatever ;p
<Ironholds> if you spent all your time doing that, I'd be seriously worried ;)
<matthewrbowker> Ya, this is a good one to do :)
<Ironholds> Utar, you're just being nice because you want your t-shirt ;p
<Utar> as we have low current of views/edits we will probably wait for AFT5 than starting AFT$
<Ironholds> that makes sense
<Ironholds> plus, it's silly to introduce a system that will be superseded in 2-3 month
<Utar> becuase "text box" is something people hear on
<tommorris> nah, most RfCs are about slightly barmy article disputes
<Ironholds> tommorris, "was Jesus a real man or a gerbil?"
<Ironholds> okay, so I have to jet in a bit, but does anyone have any last-minute questions?
<Utar> not yet
<Utar> I will inform you how it is going by us
<Bensin> Ironholds: or a lizzard... Basiliscus (genus)
<Ironholds> was Dario's link to the AFT4 data useful?
<Ironholds> Bensin, hah!
<Utar> he gave me link to dumps and http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Data
<tommorris> Ironholds: yeah, you probably need to set your an RfC tag on the page to make it into a proper RfC
<Ironholds> cool :)
<Ironholds> tommorris, that'll be done as soon as I stop IRC chatting, yeah
<Ironholds> and then a full round of advertisements, notices etc tomorrow
<Utar> that dashboard is good enough to present
<tommorris> yay, new trolling on Foundation-l
<Bensin> Ironholds: Re: the data... The amount of data seems to small to draw any conclusions, so I'm glad we're taking in more data.
<Ironholds> Bensin, ditto!
<Ironholds> that's where the second round of hand-coding will come in
<Ironholds> if any of you know of people who are easily persuaded to do lots of work, please recruit them to help out with it ;p
<Utar> but wothout us
<Ironholds> Utar, you won't be hand-coding? aw ;(
<Utar> you deleted me
<Utar> oh, i ma getting it
<Utar> that was just to write there again
<Bensin> Ironholds: However, I would really really like a fourth stripped down option. With just "How can this article be improved" as headline and then an empty box to write in.
<Utar> I thought you want other people to make it clearer
<Ironholds> Bensin, that really should be tested
<Utar> Bensin: I will vote for 4th optiion and you for [feedback]. Deal?
<Ironholds> Utar, naw, sorry. I'm horribly sleep deprived and haven't eaten since wednesday, so I'm probably not writing very clearly ;p
<Utar> I thought I can't get in second testing
<Utar> becuase I hva already been in first one
<Doug_Weller> Going now, see some of you tomorrow
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: Go eat something now. NOW.
|<-- Ziko has left freenode (Quit: Page closed)
<Utar> and to make it clear...
<Ironholds> matthewrbowker, am doing so!
<Ironholds> Utar, no, you can definitely participate
<matthewrbowker> Ironholds: Good :)
<Ironholds> I wouldn't sign off on something that excluded you lot
<Ironholds> your hand-coding ROCKED.
<Ironholds> Doug_Weller, Utar and Bensin particularly
<Utar> Is it T-shirt PER one testing? or per one chunk done? >:D
<Ironholds> although a certain user by the name of Okeyes (WMF) did do 100 *preens*
<Bensin> Utar: I think the intent of your proposal is really really good, and that it would probably generate more specific feedback. But, also think it somewhat feeds of attention to the edit-link :-/
<Ironholds> Utar, it's per one testing, obviously. We'll send 98 t-shirts to me, and 200 to you, and 100 to Utar, and... ;p
<Ironholds> the t-shirts aren't directly tied to hand-coding, they're for everyone who helps improve this tool
<Utar> 300 T-shirts
<Ironholds> so hand-coders will hopefully get them, but so will a lot of other people :)
<Utar> How can you be sleepy? You are in time zone western from mine.
<Ironholds> because some people came up with great ideas through IRC or the talkpage, but didn't handcode
<Bensin> Can we table the discussion of T-shirts for now? :-)
<Ironholds> Bensin, I agree :P
<Utar> so what about caps?
<Ironholds> Utar, I am not a merchandise shop ;p
- Bensin kicks Utar :-)
<Ironholds> okay, I need to go get food or I will just go mad and cut up a hobo for dinner or something
<Ironholds> I promise you will all get custom-made wikimedia foundation private jets
<Ironholds> with a team of mechanics who argue constantly and rearrange bits of the wings
<Utar> takes Bensisn's cap
<Ironholds> take care all! As always, email@example.com - if a question comes up later, email me!
|<-- Ironholds has left freenode (Quit: Leaving)
<Utar> i love this team