User:Okeyes (WMF)/AFT5draft


 * See also: Article feedback/Version 5.

The Article Feedback Tool project (AFT) is an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation. The goal of this project is to engage Wikipedia readers to participate more actively, inviting them to give feedback on articles they read, and encouraging them to become editors over time.

A rating version of this Article Feedback Tool is currently deployed on the English Wikipedia, based on the WMF-developed ArticleFeedback MediaWiki extension. A new version, Version 5, is under development, and will be testing new ways to engage readers on Wikipedia.

How you can get involved
The Wikimedia Foundation plans to involve the community at each step of the way, and is looking for editors and readers to contribute to the development of this article feedback tool.

Feedback Evaluation
The Foundation is now looking for experienced editors to help evaluate the quality of the feedback collected by the new AFT5 tools through early January 2012. To learn more about this project, visit the Feedback evaluation page. A special task force of editors will be selected and trained by the end of 2011.

Talk page
You're invited to give feedback about the Foundation's current plans for Version 5 and let them know what you think on the Talk page: what community concerns aren't being considered? Are there flaws in the current plans? How would you make the current ideas better? do you have any of your own to share? This is open to everyone - just drop your thoughts on the talk page.

IRC chats
To invite community participation during the development of this tool, the Foundation also hosts frequent IRC chats during office hours, as outlined in the schedule below. We hope you will join us on future chats. In the meantime, here are logs of our earlier IRC chats on Oct. 27, Nov. 3, Nov. 10, Nov. 18 and Dec. 16.

Newsletter
To get notified of new discussions and opportunities to contribute to this project, sign-up below for the Foundation's bi-weekly newsletter:

Sign up for the newsletter
 * User:Risker
 * User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
 * User:WereSpielChequers
 * User:Matthewrbowker
 * User:Hurricanefan25
 * User:Sonia
 * User:Bodnotbod
 * User:Fox
 * User:Ebe123 (Just subscribe me for all the current WMF things!)
 * Wittylama
 * User:Dougweller
 * User:Reaper Eternal
 * User:Cymru.lass
 * User:FT2

Schedule
The first phase of Version 5's development is timetabled below; those segments marked in green are the ones where the community is invited to participate actively. These dates are still tentative and subject to change, so please check this page often for schedule updates. Even if you cannot participate right away, there will be more opportunities to contribute in future stages of the project.

Current version
The Article Feedback Tool was initially deployed in 2010, and the current version (V4) now features a rating form at the bottom of each Wikipedia article, asking readers to "rate this page" on a scale from 1 to 5, using four different metrics: trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness and writing quality (see image). This version was intended to do two things: first, give the Wikipedia community a new tool for assessing article quality; second, provide a way for Wikipedia readers to get involved as editors. This tool enables anyone to rate a page, and some users are presented with a call to action asking "Did you know that you can edit this page?", with an edit button.

The version currently deployed has seen some notable successes: The Article Feedback Tool has therefore succeeded, to some degree, in promoting both quality assessment and reader engagement. However, just because the tool is effective doesn't mean it can't be improved, and some important concerns have been raised: To address these concerns, the Foundation is developing a new version – Version 5 – which focuses more on reader engagement than ratings.
 * 1) About 40,000 ratings are submitted most days, 97 percent of which come from anonymous users or readers.
 * 2) About 17 percent of users presented with the invitation to "Edit this page" after completing their rating (aka "edit call to action") tried to edit, and 2.7 percent completed their edit.
 * 3) About 90 percent of surveyed users found the tool helpful.
 * 1) The four rating categories do not necessarily provide useful input for editors; if an article has been rated as "3 stars" for completeness, this doesn't actually tell editors what the reader thinks they're missing.
 * 2) There is no way to test the "value" of feedback – an author's thoughts cannot be assessed for neutrality or good reasoning by editors.
 * 3) A reader's definition of what "objectiveness" or "trustworthiness" means may be different from the definitions of other readers, or the definitions of editors.
 * 4) There may be very few ratings on low-traffic pages, biasing the results.