Topic on Talk:User Interaction Consultation/EXAMPLE: Q&A

Is this intended to provide real time answers, or to provide feedback so the article can be improved, or something else?

This is a hypothetical suggestion serving as an example of what a solution in this space might look like...so in writing it, I didn't have a specific intent regarding whether the goal is 'answers for the user' or 'helpful article feedback'.

That being said, what do YOU think would be a reasonable direction?

Real time answers would be amazing, but I don't know if the technology is ready yet. Also there is the question of where they would come from. WMF projects or the greater internet. To do this would require the equivalent of an intelligent and discriminating Google search, something that Google has not been able to develop yet.

A more realistic target would be helpful article feedback, so that editors can find out what users want to know, and upgrade the relevant articles accordingly. This has been tried before, with disastrous results, by WMF (Oliver Keyes was involved if I remember correctly), and was shot down in flames, buried and the ground salted, by the English Wikipedia community, or at least those who bother to respond. It was poorly designed and implemented and the vast majority of responses were utterly useless, also largely due to inflexibility (there was no way to tailor the UI to suit the subject matter, and it asked leading questions which got predictably useless responses), but there was room for improvement. Unfortunately the reception was so antagonistic that even suggesting article feedback still gets a seriously hostile response from the knee-jerk and pitchfork brigade, and an understandable unwillingness to get burned again by WMF. I would very much like to see a well designed article feedback system. It is technically achievable by some modifications to the rejected version, but whatever happens, it should only be used by editors who are prepared to do the followup work for every article where it is implemented. It MUST be possible to tailor it to suit the article, project and user. Ideally it should be possible to respond to the question to find out what the reader actually wants, as most often they don't ask in a way that elicits a useful reply. This means feedback to the user, so there is a need for e-mail reply to questions. It should be possible for the editor who elects to use the system to decide whether they require a return address or not. People tend to be more serious about their questions when they are not anonymous. This would not be linked to a WP username, as Wikimedians should be able to use the talk page if they wish to remain anonymous/pseudonymous.

If used intelligently, it would also be possible to get direct answers and dialogue, but that is one of the official purposes of every articles talk page. However, most non-editing users probably still don't know of the existence of the talk page and many of those who do, don't know how to use it.

I think the members of WikiProject:Medicine would support this sort of feedback system, but you can ask them yourself if you want. Cheers, ~~~~

Thank you for the very interesting and thorough write-up! I am familiar with the 'article feedback tool's' history as, you correctly identified, it is a ghost that haunts my product roadmap :) I also think it is a shame that the implementation and roll out have 'salted the ground' and cast a shadow over any renewed efforts, as the idea remains sound in principle. Thank you also, for identifying some of the specifics that would need to be figured out for such a feature to be useful.

Lastly, the idea that the WikiProject:Medicine might be a good initial partner is an interesting one.

Perhaps I can reword this "example" and include some of the suggestions you made. For now, however, I want to refrain from evolving the 'idea' until we have given volunteers and readers more of a chance to submit their own ideas.

Good luck, and please keep me in the loop with any development. Cheers, ~~~~