Hello future Snuggle users. A design consideration for Snuggle has come under question recently that I would like to have a public discussion about. How public should activities in Snuggle be? Right now, there's really only two types of actions that can be taken in Snuggle:

• Categorizing users as good-faith, ambiguous or bad-faith
• Performing actions that affect the wiki (e.g. send a message, invite to teahouse and report abuse)

The latter activities are already public since all edits in Wikipedia are public, but the former (user categorization) could potentially be hidden within Snuggle and only made visible to Snuggle users. In a recent update to my work log, I posted a screenshot of an activity monitor for Snuggle that would make the two activities (categorization and user actions) public.

My intention is let the transparency inherent in a public activity log encourage good behavior among Snuggle users through a sense of accountability. I find visibility to be a good strategy in general for Wiki activities. This is something I've incorporated into the development of Snuggle (see the work log) and my research activities (see my contribs on meta:Research). However, some of the alpha testers have brought up concerns about problems that could result from making this log public. I'm making this post to give everyone a chance to chime in.

What do you think? Should your Snuggle activities be made part of a public record or should visibility of the activity log be restricted in some way? --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried out Snuggle tonight for the first time. The logo is incredibly cute! It looks like a cross between an element from the Periodic Chart and a Chicklet chewing gum quadrilateral. I found it easy to use, well designed, intuitive. I am willing to trust you with my log-in credentials, as you are a member of WMF. Also, I wanted to say "THANK YOU!" for not logging me out of all 28 Wikipedia-related websites when I logged out of Snuggle. I don't recall which toolserver does that, but it is very annoying! Anyway, to get to the point, and specifically why I am commenting here, is that I would rather not have my activity on Snuggle be too accessible. I don't have any specific recommendations as to what "too accessible" entails. I realize that that is vague, but my concern should not be a high priority for you, as I'm a small, minor Wikipedia participant. But since you asked, I am responding. Transparency is generally for the best, but there's also security by obscurity, which isn't fool-safe, but in this case, it probably need not be. --FeralOink (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your concern. Just letting me know helps me make better design decisions for Snuggle. I'm interested in ways to both have self-policing in Snuggle and not make you feel uncomfortably exposed. Could you tell me how you think about Wikipedia's openness? For example, Special:Recentchanges and Special:Contributions publicly list your activities. Do you feel as uncomfortable on wiki? --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EpochFail,

I can see this is an area where it is difficult to make the correct design decision.

I think the reason that classifying users in Snuggle feels different to the vast majority of Wikipedia edits is that it involves making a judgement about other users. People tend to keep their thoughts about others to themselves. This is perhaps compounded on Wikipedia by maxims like assume good faith, no personal attacks and don't bite the new comers. Even {{uw-v1}} uses quite neutral language and tries to assume good faith. In contrast, classifying a user as "bad-faith" is very personal.

I think we have two issues:

• Will this feeling put-off a lot of potential Snuggle users
• Beyond the feelings of potential Snuggle users, what are the practical implications?

In most cases the practical implications a nil. However, I can imagine you might get a few exceptions. These would come in two categories:

1. Good-faith editors who are insulted by being classified as bad-faith. Hurt feelings and possibly one less user.
2. Bad-faith editors who get jollies by creating multiple accounts and seeing how they get classified. There are a whole load of WP:BEANS ways I can imagine some saddo getting his jollies out of it.

A relevant guideline for point 1 is WP:BITE, a the relevant essay to point 2 is WP:DENY. These suggest that a degree of privacy would help the project.

On the other hand, I can see the point about accountability and all keeping an eye on each other.

I think possibly the happy medium is to restrict visibility Snuggle results to other Snuggle users, but this doesn't stop the saddos creating a an account to log in to Snuggle to see how their socks are doing. So you could restrict it to some subset such as those with reviewer rights, or those that have classified more than 100 newbies, but that invites accusations of a kabal... so whatever you do there is going to be an issue. It's just a question of picking the option which minimises the down side.

This isn't a massive issue at the moment because Snuggle is relatively little known. It would be good to make a decision before it does become an issue.

I think that whatever decision we come to, the biggest thing is to not advertise the existence of Snuggle to newbies. It's not like its a top-secret project, its just that occasionally someone will misclassify a newbie. That shouldn't be a biggie because it shouldn't negatively effect the experience of a good-faith newbie (relative to a situation of Snuggle not existing) but we don't want to bite anyone.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your write-up Yaris678. I found your perspective very informative. I'm planning to set up an IRC office hours to discuss this issue and others that have come up. I hope that, together, we can come up with a solution that will work. I'll be sending out a message to the sign-up list once I've settled on timing. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work! I wanted to test but then I saw the login option and I wondered what does it give. But first of all it felt awkward to put my credentials in an external site. Thoughts?--Qgil (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good, healthy reaction. When you put your credentials into Snuggle, you're trusting me (the only developer and root on the web server Snuggle runs on) to only pass those credentials onto the Wikipedia API and not store anything. There's good reason to trust me (I'm WMF staff, I've signed an NDA to not share your credentials, my code is open source, etc.), but I'd much rather that you didn't need to trust me (or my code) with your credentials. Sadly, there's no proper facility in MediaWiki to allow me to allow you to log in and perform actions that affect the wiki without taking your password (see OAuth for a potential solution). I'm currently working with devs at the WMF to get OAuth support implemented as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I'd recommend that you either register a legitimate alternative account that you only use in Snuggle or you could simply wait for OAuth support (might be available in a month or so). In the meantime, you'll be able to browse Snuggle and examine newcomer behavior without logging in. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is good to know. Maybe it would be useful to explain this with a little disclaimer somewhere near the login form? Not that it would make any difference from a privacy point of view, but have you considered hosting Snuggle at https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/ ?--QuimGil (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron has looked in to hosting Snuggle at wikitech: (a.k.a. WP:LABS), but they need to support OAuth first. Please see User talk:EpochFail#Snuggle on Labs. Best. 64.40.54.163 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's true. Snuggle was originally hosted @ labs, but due to the OAuth issue, I moved to the University of Minnesota server we're on at the moment (GroupLens Research is my research lab within the University). I like the idea of adding info about how login information is handled to the UI. I'll add that to the top of my list of updates to Snuggle's UI and do my best to get it pushed out before the holiday. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to run Snuggle in, say, http://ca.wikipedia.org ?--Qgil (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I'd love to. I'm currently gearing up to run an instance of Snuggle in http://pt.wikipedia.org. In order to get started, I need someone to act as a liaison to help me understand the community's needs and bug reports. Would you be willing to fill that role or help me find someone who will? --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at the Viquipèdia in Catalan. I have also volunteered as liasion if there is an interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuimGil (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... is it only for official mentors and coaches? Or can other people also use it, for example after application? The Banner talk 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its currently open for everyone to use, User:The Banner. Every action on Snuggle is visible to everyone else currently, so no worries about any bad faith people. Using Snuggle, you currently have the option of categorising newer editors, reporting them to AIV or to send them a teahouse message. You are also free to try direct Wiki contact with the editors. The categorising, in turn, helps Snuggle understand the difference between good and baith faith editors and will ease finding them. A simple sort by desirablity helps by making it much easier to find new editors of the same type

Hope this helps! Feel free to try it and leave further feedback or ask more questions! :)

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am sorry to hear about your advisor. I understand the closeness of the student-advisor relationship and this must be a difficult time for you.

Secondly, I like the mockup that you posted. I believe that the tools other than rating should be more prominently displayed, and your proposal should do just that. Andrew³²⁷ 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it. And thanks for the feedback and your work with Snuggle. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggle users and the Teahouse are co-hosting an IRC office hours session (Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC - #wikimedia-office ^connect) to discuss the state of new editor support in Wikipedia and introduce you to WP:Snuggle, a web-based tool designed to make finding good-faith newcomers who need help fast and easy. Give it a try by pointing your browser to http://snuggle.grouplens.org.

See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail (talk), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For folks interesting in brainstorming current issues with mentorship systems and what we might try to do differently, see also this idea. Come join the discussion! Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to follow up on a discussion that began during the Snuggle office hour session. One issue that I see a lot lately is that we have helpers and mentors in the various help spaces (Teahouse, Adoption program, #wikipedia-en-help, AfC review, etc.) who are not sufficiently experienced. I've seen users who are finishing up their own adoption programs jump right into trying to adopt new users, and I frequently see users with very little experience with the project come into #wikipedia-en-help to try to help new users. We don't really have any way of preventing this from happening, and we don't have any system of choosing who has enough experience to mentor.

I think it's very important that people who are helping our new users are experienced enough to answer most questions, and self-aware enough that they know when to say "I don't know" and pass the user on to someone who can help. How should we make sure this is the case? I do not like the idea of new userrights, and another dramatic RfA-like process is not something I seek to begin, but we need something: a set of criteria? A simple area where other experienced users can vouch for another user's experience? What are your thoughts? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other areas onwiki use the "vouch for each other" style, I think. For instance, someone who wants to be an SPI clerk posts a note explaining who they are and why they want to help, and then usually a clerk will take them on as a trainee clerk if it's felt they're qualified. After a period of training, the checkusers and clerks will get together and determine if they should be promoted to full clerk. No formal vote or assignment of user rights, but neither does Joe Schmoe get to wander in and start doing the work without knowing how to do it - your peers have to take a look at you, approve you, and train you before you're set loose. This seems like a reasonable setup to use for mentors/adopters, as well: start out with some self-selected, known-to-be-qualified mentors, and have them (and anyone else in the community who wants to weigh in) be the gatekeepers and trainers or new mentors. If no current mentor is willing or able to take on someone who wants to be a trainee, then the trainee will have to wait (or, perhaps, apply to [other place], which could also appoint them? or something?). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is the wide range of subjects covered by the parts of Wikipedia listed above. A SPA graphic designer might be able to answer questions about images better than an admin but wouldn't know anything about other policies. That is especially true in places like the TeaHouse, where there are enough eyes that truly bad answers are usually corrected. I support User:Fluffernutter's proposal for Adoption and AFC. Andrew³²⁷ 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but a big difference between an experienced mentor or helper and an unexperienced one is that the experienced ones tend to know when they don't know the answer, and also tend to know where to send people for more expert advice. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great thread indeed. Agreeing with flufflernutter, some level of vetting whether is peer review or bot-analytics (number of edits made in "xy" days) is needed to guarantee a minimum viability of a mentorship program. A way to do this might be by allowing different 'types' of mentors to coexist. To Andrew's point, someone with expertise in images on commons might know nothing of policy, and both types of knowledge are needed. I believe there is room for both - the complete and the partial, some folks will be very well rounded on all 4 aspects of being a Wikipedian: Content, Technology, Policy and Social, others might be better at one over another (if that makes sense). We just need to know who can be supported by a "help desk" (low touch one off answers) vs. those who need a more in-depth/handholding through a project - and help to match them accordingly. slv (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]