Steven + Sj + Petr: you can expect responses from Megan to the question y'all posed about the quantitative findings before this week is over.

Before that a few things:

1. Sj: you shared some reflections about the current state of the mobile editing experience and offered an idea for a metric we might consider using to evaluate Edit Check's broader impact on, let's call it, "edit session health."
2. Todd + Steven: you both touched on an important topic that I'm understanding (perhaps inaccurately!) as something to the effect of: How does Edit Check cope with the fact that not all new content additions require a source?
3. Clover Moss: no worries! Thank you for naming the relationship between this thread and Edit check. 
4. Sj: you also shared some feedback about the technical prototype for offering people Edit checks while they're typing. I'm going to follow up in more detail on mw:Talk:Edit_check. 
1. And for people here: please, if you have a moment to review the demo, the Editing Team needs your help! Specifically with identifying assumptions the demo makes that defy what you've come to know/think...

Now, detailed responses to points "1." and "2." below...

== Current state of mobile editing == 
> ~ The mobile editing experience still feels a bit tenuous for me even without this, and each additional modal or dialogue makes it a bit harder.  Perhaps a new paradigm could help?  Letting people break mobile edits up into steps, each saved in a sub-revision?

Sj, by "tenuous," might you be referring to the amount of context, patience/time/focus, effort, and trial and error the current default/full-page editing experience requires of people, across experience levels, to contribute constructively?

If so, I think we might be aligned on perceiving these experiences in this way…

In fact, a focus of the 2024-2025 annual plan (see "WE1.2") will be introducing, "...smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows" in service of addressing the "tenuousness" you're drawing our collective attention to.

Now, what we mean when we say "...smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows" could benefit from some more discussion. To that end, I've added this area as a discussion topic for a future Editing Team Community Conversation.

How about: if you are interested in reflecting on, and sharing ideas about, the default/full-page mobile editing experiences, please follow Sj's lead and indicate as much by commenting here?

== Visual editor session "health" ==
> I also appreciate that you're tracking how often editors come back in future months.  One other aspect it would be nice to see:  how much time editors take before saving an Edit-Checked edit.

Mmm, +1. Time-to-save could be useful in helping to build a picture of how "healthy" and effective the Edit Check-enabled editing experience is.

If other ideas come to mind for how we might evaluate overall edit session health (there may be a better term for this), now is an ideal time to voice them. 

Reason being: the Editing Team is actively defining the requirements for a dashboard for this purpose.

In the meantime, Sj, I've added the idea you shared to the ticket where this work is happening: T367130.

== No firm rules ==
> Not all changes require a source.

Steven, we seem to be aligned in understanding Wikipedia:Verifiability as including cases where new content does not need a source. To this end, Edit Check does not suggest otherwise.

In fact, more broadly, "No Firm Rules" is a design principle that has, and continues to guide the Edit Check project.

We are attempting to embody this pillar in the context of Reference Check by making it so the experience invites you to explicitly decide whether you think a source is needed or not and does not make publishing the edit you're making contingent upon how you respond.

As always, please let us know if anything here brings new questions/ideas/concerns to mind...this work benefits from opportunities to expose the thinking it rests upon and improve it as a result.

--

Peter Pelberg (he/him)
Lead Product Manager, Editing Team
Wikimedia Foundation

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 8:20 AM <petr.kadlec@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 6:12 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

~ The report says "On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3% (-13.5pp)" -- what's the difference between the first and (second) percentage figures?

I don’t know but I’d guess that the previous edit completion rate was 55.5%; with the Edit Check, the completion rate fell by 13.5pp to 40%, which is a decrease of 24.3% (13.5/55.5).

-- [[ cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec ]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/63SD6O2OOB72J4PH3CYPCOPHMXCBTJWU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NS7G7ZBWMGA2BY2UHRFN5QHZCBV4KYKS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org