Difference between revisions of "Usability of Mediawiki as a collaborative workspace for knowledge creation"
From Testiwiki
m |
m |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{study|moderator = Tekerane}} | {{study|moderator = Tekerane}} | ||
+ | [[op_fi:Mediawikin käytettävyys yhteisenä työympäristönä tiedon keräämiseen]] | ||
{{summary box|question = | {{summary box|question = | ||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
* Refactor the current [[Peer rating]] extension. The new extension system should have two rating bars: scientific quality and usefulness. | * Refactor the current [[Peer rating]] extension. The new extension system should have two rating bars: scientific quality and usefulness. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Methods== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Questionnaire to OpasNet users | ||
+ | ** Roles of OpasNet users (administrator, researcher, reader, ...) | ||
+ | * Personal research diary | ||
+ | * Interviews, personal communications? | ||
==Thoughts on scope== | ==Thoughts on scope== | ||
Line 15: | Line 23: | ||
* Do users know how to rate pages? How do they understand the scale of rating? | * Do users know how to rate pages? How do they understand the scale of rating? | ||
+ | ** Possibility of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant paperclip assistant]" to help users understand the rating system, or encourage them to use it? ("First time here? Learn more about rating bar!") | ||
* Do users bother rating pages? Do users need to be encouraged to rate, do the users notice the rating tools? | * Do users bother rating pages? Do users need to be encouraged to rate, do the users notice the rating tools? | ||
* Usability: are the rating tools easy to use and clear? | * Usability: are the rating tools easy to use and clear? | ||
Line 22: | Line 31: | ||
===Discussion tools=== | ===Discussion tools=== | ||
− | The [[Discussion]] tools should be included in the study. | + | * The [[Discussion]] tools should be included in the study. |
+ | |||
+ | ===Other=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Wiki editing conflicts (multiple users editing a page) | ||
+ | * MediaWiki citing markup for sources (if it is somehow relevant) |
Latest revision as of 08:09, 19 April 2011
This page is a study.
The page identifier is Op_en4255 |
---|
Moderator:Tekerane (see all) |
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
Upload data
|
Main message: |
---|
Question:
How do the various collaborative elements of Opasnet wiki support knowledge creation?
|
Contents
Tasks
- Refactor the current Peer rating extension. The new extension system should have two rating bars: scientific quality and usefulness.
Methods
- Questionnaire to OpasNet users
- Roles of OpasNet users (administrator, researcher, reader, ...)
- Personal research diary
- Interviews, personal communications?
Thoughts on scope
Possible issues with the rating system
- Do users know how to rate pages? How do they understand the scale of rating?
- Possibility of a "paperclip assistant" to help users understand the rating system, or encourage them to use it? ("First time here? Learn more about rating bar!")
- Do users bother rating pages? Do users need to be encouraged to rate, do the users notice the rating tools?
- Usability: are the rating tools easy to use and clear?
- What are the benefits of the ratings to the author(s) of the page?
- What are the benefits of the ratings to other users?
Discussion tools
- The Discussion tools should be included in the study.
Other
- Wiki editing conflicts (multiple users editing a page)
- MediaWiki citing markup for sources (if it is somehow relevant)