Last modified: 2013-07-08 06:16:07 UTC
The ArticleFeedback extension (not to be confused with the ArticleFeedbackv5 extension) should be disabled on Wikimedia wikis. It's apparently collecting data that nobody is looking at, it's causing confusion for both developers and users, and it's needlessly duplicative.
Are you proposing expanding ArticleFeedbackv5 to all pages? If not, this change would leave some pages covered by no tool (not necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth considering).
(In reply to comment #1) > Are you proposing expanding ArticleFeedbackv5 to all pages? No. > If not, this change would leave some pages covered by no tool (not > necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth considering). I don't see how this is an issue. Every article has a talk page for feedback.
It's not necessarily a blocker. But AFT gets more reader feedback than talk pages.
(In reply to comment #3) > It's not necessarily a blocker. But AFT gets more reader feedback than talk > pages. I feel like this is an invalid comparison (apples and oranges). Ratings are not the same as comments.
(In reply to comment #0) > The ArticleFeedback extension (not to be confused with the ArticleFeedbackv5 > extension) should be disabled on Wikimedia wikis. It's apparently collecting > data that nobody is looking at, it's causing confusion for both developers > and users, and it's needlessly duplicative. I guess the question which should be asked to a broader audience is if somebody really looks at it (we won't find out in this bug report), or if we really want to wait until AFTv5 gets deployed by default.
Of course, this is not universally wanted apparently. In bug 38443, kawiki are wanting it enabled....
(In reply to comment #6) > Of course, this is not universally wanted apparently. In bug 38443, kawiki > are wanting it enabled.... As I understand it, requests for further deployments of this extension will be denied, as the extension's development is dead.
reedy, it looks like there might be some confusion regarding ArticleFeedback and ArticleFeedbackv5. I commented at bug 38443.
(In reply to comment #7) > As I understand it, requests for further deployments of this extension will > be denied, as the extension's development is dead. Citation highly welcome. If there's no proof for that I'd propose closing as WONTFIX. Statements like "it's causing confusion, and it's needlessly duplicative" are rather subjective, plus there *are* communities that ask for enabling, plus if I get it right such decisions are made per community.
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) >> As I understand it, requests for further deployments of this extension will >> be denied, as the extension's development is dead. > > Citation highly welcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=531775235&oldid=531774352 As I understand it, AFT (also known as AFTv4) is deprecated and no longer maintained. You'd have to check in with Fabrice, Oliver, et al. to know for sure. I'm basing my understanding on comments from them (and the general development arc, I suppose). From <https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt>: --- 'wmgUseArticleFeedback' => array( 'default' => false, 'testwiki' => true, 'en_labswikimedia' => true, 'enwiki' => true, 'eswiki' => true, 'eswikinews' => true, 'hiwiki' => true, 'huwiki' => true, 'metawiki' => true, 'ptwiki' => true, 'ptwikibooks' => true, 'srwiki' => true, 'zhwiki' => true, ), --- > Statements like "it's causing confusion, and it's needlessly duplicative" are > rather subjective, plus there *are* communities that ask for enabling, plus > if I get it right such decisions are made per community. Well, no. Having two tools that are very similarly named ("ArticleFeedback" v. "ArticleFeedbackv5") and that serve the same function (soliciting reader feedback) is objectively duplicative and confusing. You can see evidence of the confusion in comment 8 of this bug, even.
Regarding kawiki, I honestly don't know which they want, or if they know there's a difference (I've asked on that bug). However, there is definitely confusion going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=536487535#Rate_vs._Help (Rate vs. Help) for an example on English Wikipedia.
(In reply to comment #10) > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=531775235&oldid=531774352 > As I understand it, AFT (also known as AFTv4) is deprecated and no longer > maintained. It says "We've stopped releasing versions of AFT4", nothing else... > You'd have to check in with Fabrice, Oliver, et al. Thanks, will do that.
Thanks for filing this ticket about Article Feedback 4 on English Wikipedia. We are planning to remove Article Feedback v4 (AFT4), but it seems more efficient for us to do that at the same time as we make RfC-related changes to Article Feedback v5 (AFT5), so we can make a single announcement about both versions. We'll discuss all this with our product team and post back with a release plan for both features. For practical reasons, I recommend we consolidate our discussion for both AFT4 and AFT5 to this new bug 45538, that covers both versions: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45538 For that reason, I have marked this bug as a duplicate of 45538. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 45538 ***
(In reply to comment #13) > Thanks for filing this ticket about Article Feedback 4 on English Wikipedia. This bug is about all Wikimedia projects. > We are planning to remove Article Feedback v4 (AFT4), but it seems more > efficient for us to do that at the same time as we make RfC-related changes > to > Article Feedback v5 (AFT5), so we can make a single announcement about both > versions. For all projects? Or just enwiki? > > For practical reasons, I recommend we consolidate our discussion for both > AFT4 > and AFT5 to this new bug 45538 I disagree. This bug is about all Wikimedia projects, not just enwiki.
(In reply to comment #13) > Thanks for filing this ticket about Article Feedback 4 on English Wikipedia. This bug was actually about Article Feedback 4 on all Wikimedia wikis (not just the English Wikipedia). I thought I'd read that the Wikimedia Foundation was no longer supporting this extension (ArticleFeedbackv4) and that the data it's collecting was not being actively looked at/used on any Wikimedia wiki. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? If other wikis want the extension and it's being actively maintained, that's a different matter, of course. > We are planning to remove Article Feedback v4 (AFT4), but it seems more > efficient for us to do that at the same time as we make RfC-related changes > to Article Feedback v5 (AFT5), so we can make a single announcement about both > versions. I thought on February 25 (three days ago), you all had released a new version of AFTv5 (cf. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_feedback&diff=540386197&oldid=540329505&diffonly=1>). I'm a little confused about deployments; a release plan sounds great. :-)
We are in the process of contacting all wikis which now use AFT4 (and the even older ReaderFeedback extension), to let them know that we will be discontinuing AFT4 and are recommending that they consider AFT5 instead, when it is ready for wider international deployment. But we need to give wikis fair warning, rather than pull the plug abruptly. We also want to finalize our international release plan and identify an archive location and format for all the data. Keep in mind that besides the English Wikipedia RfC-related changes, we also need to deploy the new features on the German Wikipedia, then the French Wikipedia, with more to come. We would prefer to coordinate all these different AFT4 and AFT5 releases in an orderly fashion, so we can prepare, deploy and test them as a series, then announce them all together. We'll get back to you soon on the other thread.
(In reply to comment #16) > We are in the process of contacting all wikis which now use AFT4 (and > the even older ReaderFeedback extension), to let them know that we > will be discontinuing AFT4 and are recommending that they consider > AFT5 instead, when it is ready for wider international deployment. > > But we need to give wikis fair warning, rather than pull the plug > abruptly. We also want to finalize our international release plan and > identify an archive location and format for all the data. This is all fantastic to hear. :D I assume you all are you using your own processes/procedures to track this work (outside of Bugzilla), so this bug can most certainly stay resolved. Thank you very much for all of your work on this, Fabrice, Oliver, and Matthias.
Unmarking this as a duplicate, since bug 45538 is now English Wikipedia-specific.
*** Bug 49976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Related URL: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/70349 (Gerrit Change I82fe6063a24ee4cba13778b7b88a29e3c0f1296e)
(In reply to comment #16) > But we need to give wikis fair warning, rather than pull the plug abruptly. > We also want to finalize our international release plan and identify an > archive location and format for all the data. Unfortunately, it seems this didn't happen and the extension was turned off before Portuguese wikis were notified. (or was it just me who didn't see the notification?)
(In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #16) > > But we need to give wikis fair warning, rather than pull the plug abruptly. > > We also want to finalize our international release plan and identify an > > archive location and format for all the data. > > Unfortunately, it seems this didn't happen and the extension was turned off > before Portuguese wikis were notified. > > (or was it just me who didn't see the notification?) No, it's not just you. The snap decision to remove the extension was not advertised beyond Bugzilla. It was mentioned after the fact in < http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Caf%C3%A9_dos_programadores#Tech_news:_2013-27>. I based my decision on the following considerations. First, there was evidence that AFTv4 had been broken for some time (see bug 49967). The time it took for that bug to be noticed and reported suggested to me that the feature was not used very actively by editors. Second, notice had been given before (see above), but the Foundation had failed to follow through. Given that the extension was in a state of disrepair and that previous announcements regarding its pending removal were not followed through, I thought that editors were likely to find additional announcements annoying or lacking credibility. The care and concern that had been expressed for the AFTv4 sunsetting process seemed to reflect a narrative about how well-liked AFTv4 was that was charitable to the Foundation's hopes for the feature but not commensurate with the actual reality of its usage. Were these assumptions incorrect? If so, there are courses of actions we could recourse to, including temporarily re-enabling the feature so people can have another chance to archive its data. Re-enabling the feature will be disruptive to some, though, so I'd like to make that there exists some demand for that, first. I apologize if the way this was handled was abrupt or disruptive to you or anyone else.
Hi guys, we're sorry if we caused any inconvenience. Ori, as a rule of thumb it would be great if you could consult with the product manager (in this case, me) before removing this tool from a wiki project, so we're all on the same page. ;o) One of the reasons we didn't follow through vigorously on the removal of AFT4 is that we wanted to first hear the German and French community decisions regarding AFT5, which will influence our next steps for this product. While the German community doesn't want this tool, the French community is now planning to deploy it widely when their test ends in coming months. In coming weeks, we aim to reach a decision on how widely to evangelize AFT5, but the tool is available now to any wiki that wants it. So we are prepared to support the proposed release on pt.wikibooks.org, which has requested it -- as well as any other wikis that have community support for this tool.
(In reply to comment #23) > Ori, as a rule of thumb it would be great if you could consult with the > product manager (in this case, me) before removing this tool from a wiki > project, so we're all on the same page. ;o) Fabrice, on 02/08 you announced your intention to discontinue the extension on February 28th (comment 16, above). Four months later, the extension was still enabled, and had a critical bug (bug 49967), which I fixed. Commenting on that bug, you wrote: > We're talking about a very old piece of software which we no longer > support and should probably discontinue -- then upgrade to AFT5. Prompted by your comment, I file bug 49976, "Remove ArticleFeedback extension from Wikimedia wikis". I quote you in the bug report and add you as a CC. I conclude the report by asking for help in reaching out and providing notice. Oliver replies (comment 2), writing: > We already organised switching this off. We sent out notices, informed > projects, the whole shebang. Then Roan informed us he'd killed the > extension in January when it started acting funny after the migration. As far as I am aware, you did not follow-up anywhere to announce that the switch-off had been postponed, or to explain the rationale. > One of the reasons we didn't follow through vigorously on the removal of AFT4 > is that we wanted to first hear the German and French community decisions > regarding AFT5, which will influence our next steps for this product. This makes very little sense. The discontinuation of AFTv4 was announced in February, but the evaluation phase for AFTv5 on the French and German Wikipedias did not start until April.
(In reply to comment #23) > Ori, as a rule of thumb it would be great if you could consult with the > product manager (in this case, me) before removing this tool from a wiki > project, so we're all on the same page. ;o) You're copied on this bug. Presumably you get e-mails for comments and bug status changes. From my perspective, this bug is resolved and was resolved well. There's an open tangential issue about whether this data should be archived (and if so, in what format). That should be the subject of another bug, if there's interest in archiving this data. My view on this is somewhat dependent on more specific information about what is available in the current XML/SQL database dumps.
Hi Ori, I owe you an apology. I mistakenly thought this was a new incident, when in fact this is the earlier discussion we had months ago. And you are correct that we dropped the ball in terms of contacting other wikis, though we did start this process -- but did not have the resources to carry it out. Our initial hope was to get Article Feedback v5 ready first, so that we could release it at about the same time as we discontinued old versions of the tool. But due to a variety of factors, that plan didn't pan out. I am not sure yet what our next steps will be about this feature, and we need to resume our initial outreach to all these wikis, to see what they want to do. But that is unlikely to happen for several weeks, until we're caught up with higher priority projects like Notifications and the Visual Editor. In any case, I am very sorry for my inaccurate statements above -- and I really appreciate what you did to solve the bug above. Thank you!
> In any case, I am very sorry for my inaccurate statements above -- and > I really appreciate what you did to solve the bug above. Thank you! No problem at all. Thanks for the note.
