Grants talk:IdeaLab/MoodBoxes

Right of first refusal

@WMoran (WMF): I hope this helps. Please let me know what you or your designee thinks of it. EllenCT (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Hey there; Wes pointed this to me as lead PM for Editing, so I'll give my quick view.

Though MoodBar was successful in some very internal objectives ("eliciting feedback via simple UI manipulations is an effective way to reach users", "feedback mechanisms tend to self-select users who have a higher natural propensity to become active contributors"), I consider it to have failed as a product. The value of the tool wasn't high enough to retain it on the target wiki for which it was developed (English Wikipedia), as "the group-level effect of MoodBar on retention, being diluted on the whole sample of registered users, is small in absolute terms" and in my opinion it doesn't out-weigh the burden of an additional channel for community members to patrol and stream of comments to which to respond. (Quotes from [1].)

I'm definitely not dead-set against this idea, but I'm suspicious about the cost to community members of patrolling/responding, the damage to new users of prompting them to give feedback and then not necessarily doing anything with it, and the value of the data and what can be done with it if it's as low-signal/high-noise as.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): some of those concerns are addressed at [2]. While disruptive in questionably sustainable ways, the MoodBar resulted in retention rates equivalent to 216 additional expected editors per year. I have tried to remove the parts which caused disruption, stress, workload, and difficulty, and amplify the effects which could, given the peer reviewed literature review on empathy as a driver for prosocial behavior, be causes of increased editor retention. Would you please specify what you see as potential "damage to new users"? Has the Hawthorne effect been shown to exist whether collected data is analyzed or not? I have asked for an ethics review, which I am confident will find that there is more than one way to measure the expected editor retention rate. It need not be shown to all editors until it has been measured. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dario (WMF): are there any valid objections to this approach? Are there any experiments planned with greater potential to attract and retain additional editors? EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Halfak (WMF): are there any experiments planned with greater expected potential to attract and retain additional editors? EllenCT (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a broad question and "expected" is a bit subjective. So let me apply my subjectivity :) m:ORES is designed to explore a hypothesis I have for why we struggle to retain new editors. I think it has great potential. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj7o5d-OEis#t=3m00s for an overview of that argument. Besides this, I think that the work on mw:Edit Review Improvements has a lot of potential and Jmorgan and I are iterating on an experiment re. Research:Teahouse long term new editor retention. We've been able to show substantial gains there and we have tentative plans to use m:ORES to target more good-faith newcomers sooner. --Halfak (WMF) (talk)

"about other editors"

I am removing "about other editors" until the issue concerning what to do if the editor feels positive about some other editors and negative about others can be resolved. EllenCT (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign

I moved this into the Inspire Campaign because collecting data such as "I am feeling 😊 😐 😒 about this edit" and "...about my certainty" are likely to correlate with revision quality and thus may be useful for curation and review. EllenCT (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

April 12 Proposal Deadline: Is your project ready for funding?

The deadline for Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) submissions this round is April 12th, 2016. If you’ve developed your idea into a project that would benefit from funding, consider applying!

To apply, you must (1) create a draft request using the “Expand into an Individual Engagement Grant” button on your idea page, (2) complete the proposal entirely, filling in all empty fields, and (3) change the status from "draft" to "proposed." As soon as you’re ready, you should begin to invite any communities affected by your project to provide feedback on your proposal talk page.

If you have any questions about IEG or would like support in developing your proposal, we're hosting a few proposal help sessions this month in Google Hangouts:

• April 5th, 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
• April 8th 1:00 - 2:00 UTC
• April 12th 16:00 - 17:00 UTC

I'm also happy to set up an individual session. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Mood selection emoticon order

I am feeling ☐😐 about ☐😃 ☐😊 ☑️😐 ☐😒.

I am feeling ☐😐 about ☑️😐 ☐😊 ☐😃 ☐😒.

I am feeling ☑️😊 about ☐😐 ☐😊 ☐😃 ☐😒. EllenCT (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)