FamilySearch Wiki:Technical Meeting Agenda 22 June 2010

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Watch the recording, the ID is 1374

Purpose of the meeting

  • To forge solutions with other community contributors.
  • To discuss content, technical issues, workarounds, community, site design, and strategy.

Agenda[edit | edit source]

News[edit | edit source]

News items can now be found on the Community News page in the Wiki.

  • Questions?
  • Comments?

Recognition[edit | edit source]

Add your recognition items below

  • Kudos goes to ...

Discussion Items[edit | edit source]

From the Community[edit | edit source]

  • Wiki Quality Assurance: I would like to discuss Quality Assurance in terms of wiki articles.

As I introduced in our meeting on June 8th I would like your input on Quality Assurance (QA) for the wiki. There are primarily two areas in which we collect QA data:

1. Customer Satisfcation/NPS-We proposed to collect this data by including an imbedded poll at the right edge of the wiki in which wiki views can vote on their likelihood of recommending the wiki to a friend or family member. This question is a Net Promoter Score (NPS) question that uses an 11 point Likert scale. In the meeting I will discuss what NPS is how we use the data to improve the wiki. We would also like to include a user rating widget on each page that will allow us to know how people like the page.
2. Quality Assurance-This is an area that is up for discussion and something I would like to explore with everyone in attendance at the meeting. Should we have a QA process for wiki pages? Some questions we need to answer in order to know if we should do QA:
  a. Are there things that every wiki page should contain, but some do not?
  b. Are there certain style aspects that should be maintained on the wiki?
  c. Is there a process that a reviewer can follow to evaluate individual wiki pages?
If we determine that QA is needed for the wiki then we will move forward with a plan to implement a QA process. I look forward to this discussion and your feedback as we move forward.

Community feedback from meeting dialogue (in no particular order):[edit | edit source]

Need for community to establish criteria for article quality.

Not all articles would necessarily have same components/criteria.How to reconcile the breadth of potential topics to a single criteria?

Articles might have "thermometer-style" gauge to indicate level of completion. Use some kind of automated measures to help guide users (particularly new user) so contributions are of higher quality and more complete.  Similar to "fill in your profile" processes used on other web sites.

After articles met "basic criteria" (yet to be defined), user input might be solicited through thumbs up/thumbs down or "how effective was this article" ratings.

Articles that had met "basic criteria," and had positive user input, might then become candiates for "good article" or "feature article" status.

First few steps (meeting "basic criteria" and receiving positive user input) would be automated processes.  Articles meeting those criteria would then be reviewed by a person to evaluate quality of content. 

Articles should be evaluated by someone with expertise in the particular area of research.  However, since experts would not be the ones using the articles to get help, articles should also be evaluated from perspective of beginning researcher.

Articles might be evaluated separately in terms of whether the article was deemed "important."  "Importance" may (or may not) be tied to the size of the juristiction that the article covers.  For example, a little-known record set from a particular timeframe for a small country may not be deemed as important as an article about birth records for a major city. 

New articles (at "stub" level) should not be subjected to user evaluation, either for article quality, or to glean stats for NPS.

More formalized process needed for community involvement in articles lacking "basic criteria."  For example, how to identify article not meeting "basic criteria" but without squashing new users.  Emphasis placed on encouraging quality, not "punishing" perceived deficits. 

Concerns expressed that qualitative information not be used in such a way that it might embarrass or discourage newbies.

May want to consider reviewing wikipedia's criteria for article quality, and brainstorm what applies to genealogy and what does not, in order to establish criteria that will both motivate contributors, and help ensure that article meet user (reader) needs.

Lise 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BunkerJM 21:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The following was moved from the previous week's agenda as it is related to the above. Thomas_Lerman 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Suggested item for the agenda -- Steve has proposed an artricle rating system for our Wiki articles. Could we have him give everyone a brief explanation of the whys and hows of such a system and then have some discussion on it? Jimmy B. Parker 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the development of a rating system. I have posted replies to two threads (Good Article > community graphics & editing > Featured Article & Flagging pages that need editing) that raised associated issues and would be willing to discuss the system further in these threads. Please note: I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 8. --Steve 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Many of our meetings lately have focused almost soely on design and engineering functions, almost to the exclusion of content discussions. Is it time to split this meeting and begin holding a meetings focused on content matters? Jimmy B. Parker 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Add your items to the agenda. -Fran

From FamilySearch Staff[edit | edit source]

Be bold! Post your agenda items!

Feel free to post on the agenda any items you wish to cover during the meeting. If your item requires details or feedback, post some details on the discussion page and link to the discussion from the agenda.