Page MenuHomePhabricator

Article Feedback - My Contributions
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

This is a research request to study the feasibility of showing Article Feedback under My Contributions, in a way that is similar to how we do this in the Central Feedback page but consistent with the current My Contributions format.

Once we have an estimate of how much work this would take, we can determine how and when to implement this.


Version: unspecified
Severity: critical

Details

Reference
bz36773

Related Objects

View Standalone Graph
This task is connected to more than 200 other tasks. Only direct parents and subtasks are shown here. Use View Standalone Graph to show more of the graph.

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Unbreak Now!.Nov 22 2014, 12:29 AM
bzimport added a project: ArticleFeedbackv5.
bzimport set Reference to bz36773.

asheesh wrote:

To clarify: "My contributions" == https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:0:53aa:64c:883:2cbe:b4db:4c ?

That would be excellent. I was originally going to file a new bug requesting that. Instead I'll add myself to CC:s.

Created attachment 10743
Prototype of AFT in MyContribs

Attached:

Fabrice: I've added a screenshot of the WIP - so far it appears to be coming together nicely.
Can you think about what exact info & format the line for the AFT-entries should hold?

Thanks, Matthias, glad you were able to make such good progress on this. The prototype screenshot looks great.

Here is an example of my recommended wording for the AFT entries on the My Contributions page for an individual user:

21:19, 6 June 2012 . . (+95)‎ . . Feedback on <Golden-crowned Sparrow> ‎(This article needs more audio and video clips of the bird's song.) . . Status: Positive - Featured

Here's what it looks like in pseudo-code:

<hour, date, go to permalink> . . (character count) .. Feedback on <article name, go to permalink> (comment, if any) . . Status: [found what you were looking for? Positive|Negative|Neutral] - [Helpful|Flagged|Featured|Resolved|Hidden|Oversight Requested|Oversighted]

This is very similar to what you have now in the prototype, but I propose using the 'Feedback on' label first, so that people can see right away that this is a feedback post rather than an edit. I also recommend using the article name by itself, instead of the complicated path name for the feedback page, which is not meaningful to average users.

If it's easy to do, I propose adding status information, based on whether or not they found what they were looking for -- and whether or not the feedback was found helpful (50% helpful or more), flagged, featured, resolved, hidden, oversight-requested or oversighted. If any of these requests are impractical in this time-frame, we can postpone them to later.

Lastly, it is important that the text of the comment be replaced with '(hidden comment)' if the feedback was hidden, oversight-requested or oversighted.

Created attachment 10756
Completed AFT integration into My Contributions

Attached:

Code pushed to Gerrit (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/11282/ & https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/11283/)
Can't push to prototype yet since it depends on a core change (11282) that needs approval.

I've attached a screenshot of what it looks like.

Changed bug status to ASSIGNED.

Hi Matthias,

Nice work on this feature overall!

But I'm afraid we still have a serious issue before we can deploy this to production, because this requirement above was not implemented:

"It is important that the text of the comment be replaced with '(hidden comment)' if the feedback was hidden, oversight-requested or oversighted."

As you can tell from the feedback on my contribution page, we are still showing offensive comments, even after they have been hidden or oversighted:

http://prototype.wikimedia.org/release-en/Special:Contributions/Fabrice_Florin

So we cannot deploy this feature until this has been resolved and tested.

If you can pull this off today, I can test it at 8:30am PT my time, so you can try to get it code-reviewed before today's deployment. Otherwise, we will need to remove it from the code base that gets deployed today, sorry. We would get lynched by community leaders if we didn't ;o)

Also note that there is another bug, which is that the 'Hidden' label doesn't appear at the end of hidden posts (but Oversighted does, along with all the other labels). So this would have to be fixed as well.

Let's remove the "Status: Positive" (or "Status: Negative"). As Oliver points out, it isn't immediately relevant and is confusing. (Even I find it hard to understand, and I wrote the spec, not a good sign ;o)

(Though I would keep the word 'Status: ', but only if the post has been found helpful, flagged, featured, resolved, hidden or oversighted.)

Let's also fix the problem reported by Oliver for the new user contribution list, where the feedback entries are formatted incorrectly - there's no info on who actually left the feedback:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=newbie

Here is an example of my recommended wording for feedback on the contributions page for new accounts (but not for individual users):

21:19, 6 June 2012 . . (+95)‎ . . Feedback on <Golden-crowned Sparrow> by <Fabrice Florin> (<talk>) - ‎(This article needs more audio and video clips of the bird's song.) . . Status: Featured

Here's what it looks like in pseudo-code:

<hour, date, go to permalink> . . (character count) .. Feedback on <article
name> by <user name/ID> (<talk>) - (comment, if any) . . Status: [Helpful|Flagged|Featured|Resolved|Hidden|Oversight Requested|Oversighted]

The <user name/ID> would link to that user's profile, if it exists (or to their contribs page if no profile exists). The '<talk>' link would link to their talk page. Neither of these would show if you are searching for feedback from an individual users.

I also recommend that we show the comments in gray text (instead of black), to match the style used for other types of notes on the contributions page.

Pushed to Gerrit (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/14285/) & prototype

I made a minor change to the proposed copy though; instead of this:

<hour, date, go to permalink> . . (character count) .. Feedback on <article
name> by <user name/ID> (<talk>) - (comment, if any) . . Status:
[Helpful|Flagged|Featured|Resolved|Hidden|Oversight Requested|Oversighted]

I made it like this, which more closely resembles the current entries for when someone edits pages:

<hour, date, go to permalink> . . (character count) . . Feedback on <article
name> . . <user name/ID> (<talk>) (comment, if any) . . Status:
[Helpful|Flagged|Featured|Resolved|Hidden|Oversight Requested|Oversighted]

Is that ok, or should I change it to the proposed text?

Also: "The <user name/ID> would link to that user's profile, if it exists (or to their contribs page if no profile exists)"
-> I didn't add in the check to the contribs part; I have - for now - just used the default method of building a url for a user, which "Make user link (or user contributions for unregistered users)"
So if a user has not completed his page yet, it will still link to it, regardless.
The reason I didn't build this yet, is that I think there's a reason it's currently done this way (probably to encourage people to actually complete their page), and if there is no (longer a) valid reason, we should change it everywhere, including the article entries in MyContribs.
Just my 2c - if you want to, I'll update it none-the-less, but I liked to hear your thoughts about it first :)

And about the gray: didn't touch that one either. The comments on articles are black as well. They're just gray when they're no manual but automated comments:
When someone edits a certain section of a page (e.g. section "Breeding" on Golden-crowned Sparrow: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/rc-en/index.php?title=Golden-crowned_Sparrow&action=edit&section=3), the comment /* Breeding */ is automatically entered as summary. If that isn't changed, that will be gray text "Breeding" on MyContribs; however if someone manually enters a summary, it'll be black.
So I left this untouched, because the current method seems to be the more consistent one.

Thanks, Matthias!

The changes you propose work for me.