In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
I couldn't agree more, it reminds me of a principle in UX/UI (can't recall its "name" or exact wording) that emphasises the importance of giving help exactly when it's needed, not before nor after.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:59 AM Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter: 1. Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor. 2. Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you, -- Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation
Thanks Benoit, This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.
Do we know more about: * How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when writing a new article * If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to recognize a good reference from a poor one * How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a reference, can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url already) * Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the reference insertion tool)
These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across communities/countries.
In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM bevellin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check%3E.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
- Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
- Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as
Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you,
Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I really think we have a good opportunity to influence this behaviour by using tools and UX, but as an aside, as Lodewijk and Galder have pointed out, in addition to the technical challenges, it's also up to us as Wikipedia editors how we handle what's lacking in articles written by newcomers.
If we delete the article, we typically tell them why, but there's a huge difference between moving an article to a user space and politely explaining what's missing and deleting a text and making the explanation sound more like a justification for our actions than as a helpful guide to writing an encyclopedic article.
As a patroller, I'd be happy for people to just indicate sources in any way – if that means they write out the title within brackets, fine, that's a quick and easy fix and then we can thank them for their contribution and explain how to do it the next time. But I also think we need to recognize that as we've raised the bar for what's acceptable in the encyclopedia (as most language versions do once they've accumulated the most necessary encyclopedic content), it's not just become more difficult to write one's first article, but also for patrollers to help newcomers. The time investment necessary to help fix a stub without sources to what's considered acceptable standard has grown considerably, and thus the same level of desire to help a newcomer will lead to deletion more often in 2024 than in 2006.
Best,
//Johan Jönsson --
Den lör 9 mars 2024 kl 16:15 skrev Natacha Rault natacha@sans-pages.org:
Hi, indeed it is great news to know this new tool is being tested. What I have noticed is that new editors (speaking from workshop experience) find it harder to find the source button since it is no long written but equivalent to quotation mark => ? . To add a ref if they don?t know where to do it from they need to virtually try clicking every button. A lot of them also use external links by mistake (the buttons are so close to one other it?s easy to make a mistake). Kind regards, Nattes
Envoy? de mon iPhone
Le 9 mars 2024 ? 03:25, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com a ?crit :
? Thanks Benoit, This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.
Do we know more about:
- How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when
writing a new article
- If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to
recognize a good reference from a poor one
- How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a
reference, can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url already)
- Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in
how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the reference insertion tool)
These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across communities/countries.
In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03?PM bevellin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
- Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
- Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch,
as Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish? Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you,
Beno?t Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
could there be message box that asks a simple question like "thank you for the contribution, where did you get this information from?" with a text field, it just adds it to the edit description. so something is captured in the edit history.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 10:25, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Benoit, This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.
Do we know more about:
- How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when
writing a new article
- If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to
recognize a good reference from a poor one
- How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a
reference, can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url already)
- Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in
how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the reference insertion tool)
These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across communities/countries.
In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM bevellin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
- Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
- Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch,
as Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you,
Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello, When I was born, I didn't know how to speak or walk. When I started in the school, I didn't know how to multiply 2x2. When I started in the University, I didn't know how to research a topic within academy standards. When I first drove a car in the driving school, I didn't know how to drive properly. In everyone of these learning steps, I had someone helping me: my parents, my teachers, my professors, my driving-teacher(?). When I started writing in Wikipedia, I didn't know what a template was, how to make a redirect, what to link or not and how to properly add a reference. Instead of just deleting things, we (the community) should help newbies. You can learn with a text written inside a box or whatever, but way better is if we help them, take what they did and correct it and let them improve. Could the editing platform be better designed? For sure. But we are a community. It is in our hands to be rude with the newbies or welcoming. I try to chose the second one.
Best,
Galder
________________________________ From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 1:18 PM To: effeietsanders@gmail.com effeietsanders@gmail.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Mopping with the tap open
could there be message box that asks a simple question like "thank you for the contribution, where did you get this information from?" with a text field, it just adds it to the edit description. so something is captured in the edit history.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 10:25, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.commailto:effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Benoit, This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.
Do we know more about: * How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when writing a new article * If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to recognize a good reference from a poor one * How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a reference, can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url already) * Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the reference insertion tool)
These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across communities/countries.
In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM <bevellin@wikimedia.orgmailto:bevellin@wikimedia.org> wrote: Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter: 1. Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor. 2. Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you, -- Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Boodarwun Gnangarra 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'
Thanks Benoit, I'm so happy to see the Editing Team and the WMF are working on this! I think it will be another great success, just like the talk pages project. Keep up the good work !!
El sáb., 9 de mar. de 2024 9:43 a. m., Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> escribió:
Hello, When I was born, I didn't know how to speak or walk. When I started in the school, I didn't know how to multiply 2x2. When I started in the University, I didn't know how to research a topic within academy standards. When I first drove a car in the driving school, I didn't know how to drive properly. In everyone of these learning steps, I had someone helping me: my parents, my teachers, my professors, my driving-teacher(?). When I started writing in Wikipedia, I didn't know what a template was, how to make a redirect, what to link or not and how to properly add a reference. Instead of just deleting things, we (the community) should help newbies. You can learn with a text written inside a box or whatever, but way better is if we help them, take what they did and correct it and let them improve. Could the editing platform be better designed? For sure. But we are a community. It is in our hands to be rude with the newbies or welcoming. I try to chose the second one.
Best,
Galder
*From:* Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2024 1:18 PM *To:* effeietsanders@gmail.com effeietsanders@gmail.com; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Mopping with the tap open
could there be message box that asks a simple question like "thank you for the contribution, where did you get this information from?" with a text field, it just adds it to the edit description. so something is captured in the edit history.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 10:25, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Benoit, This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.
Do we know more about:
- How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when
writing a new article
- If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to
recognize a good reference from a poor one
- How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a
reference, can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url already)
- Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in
how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the reference insertion tool)
These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across communities/countries.
In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM bevellin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check%3E.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
- Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
- Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as
Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you,
Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Boodarwun Gnangarra 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Oh sorry, I didn't realize someone else had already beat me to linking to it! Apologies for the duplicate material.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:03 PM bevellin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello
Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check < https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check%3E.
This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22 Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
- Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
- Add &ecenable=1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as
Romaine started the thread: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon&veaction=edit&ecenabl... 3. Reload the page with the new URL. 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without adding a citation 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are doing.
All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the design for multi-checks.
Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your questions.
Thank you,
Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him) Community Relations Specialist Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 13:58, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added.
English Wikipedia has a notice to this effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn
Discussion about improving it (and some objections to it) is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed: * People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours). * The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x* more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown * New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check was available. * Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
--- i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
How much does Edit Check decrease the total number of saved edits and unique editors?
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org wrote:
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during
the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed:
- People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to publish
a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).
- The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x*
more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown
- New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check was
available.
- Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a
non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
-- Peter Pelberg (he/him) Lead Product Manager, Editing Team Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
How much does Edit Check decrease the total number of saved edits and unique editors?
I should have looked before asking in the results you linked to. Short answer: “On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3%”
In other words we lose 24% of saved edits in order to decrease the revert rate by 8.6%. This tradeoff does not seem good.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org wrote:
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during
the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed:
- People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to publish
a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).
- The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x*
more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown
- New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check
was available.
- Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a
non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
-- Peter Pelberg (he/him) Lead Product Manager, Editing Team Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
If those edits were going to be unsourced junk, decreasing them is good.
Todd
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024, 12:56 Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
How much does Edit Check decrease the total number of saved edits and unique editors?
I should have looked before asking in the results you linked to. Short answer: “On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3%”
In other words we lose 24% of saved edits in order to decrease the revert rate by 8.6%. This tradeoff does not seem good.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org
wrote:
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during
the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed:
- People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to
publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).
- The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x*
more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown
- New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check
was available.
- Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a
non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
-- Peter Pelberg (he/him) Lead Product Manager, Editing Team Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... 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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:55 AM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
If those edits were going to be unsourced junk, decreasing them is good.
Todd
Not all changes require a source.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024, 12:56 Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
How much does Edit Check decrease the total number of saved edits and unique editors?
I should have looked before asking in the results you linked to. Short answer: “On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3%”
In other words we lose 24% of saved edits in order to decrease the revert rate by 8.6%. This tradeoff does not seem good.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org
wrote:
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during
the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed:
- People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to
publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).
- The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x*
more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown
- New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check
was available.
- Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a
non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
-- Peter Pelberg (he/him) Lead Product Manager, Editing Team Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... 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/... 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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks Peter and Megan, very cool. Steven, I always read threads that you weigh in on :)
I love the spirit of the edit check experiment. Desktop impact seems excellent. I especially like the recent demo integrating feedback into the editing interface (on desktop), and making the feedback optional (you see it but can ignore it if you know what you mean to do).
~ 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?
~ 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?
~ 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.
SJ
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 10:07 PM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org wrote:
If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during
the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
Romaine – and everyone here who resonated with what Romaine expressed above – I thought you might value knowing that a recent A/B test https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#Reference_Check_A/B_Test of Edit Check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check (the idea Benoît shared here https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/) supports the assumptions you're making above and in this thread more broadly.
Specifically, the A/B test showed:
- People [i] shown the Reference Check are *2.2x* more likely to publish
a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).
- The highest observed increase was on mobile where people are *4.2x*
more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown
- New content edit revert rate decreased by *8.6%* if Reference Check was
available.
- Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a
non-reverted edit are *16%* more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
You can read the full report that Megan Neisler https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MNeisler_(WMF) prepared here: Reference Check AB Test Analysis https://mneisler.quarto.pub/reference-check-ab-test-report-2024.
If anything you see brings questions/ideas https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Ideas to mind, now is a wonderful time to share them. Reason: the Editing Team is actively planning https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024 how to expand Edit Check and needs volunteer expertise to shape this experience.
i. "People" defined as people who are unregistered or published <100 edits.
-- Peter Pelberg (he/him) Lead Product Manager, Editing Team Wikimedia Foundation
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
For 10 years or more, already, reliable sources have been mandatory in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, and any unsourced edit can and should be reverted and the user warned. Adding to that, since at least 2016, we use the abuse filters to block any edition lacking sources. Newbies like the one described by Romaine would receive a daunting red warning from the abuse filter system about the necessity of adding reliable sources in order for their edit to be saved - and the opportunity to go back and fix the problem. This has greatly improved things there, in that subject.
Back in 2009, about 1 month after joining Wikipedia I found myself in a serious conflict with other, well established users, about a well sourced edit I wanted to add, which was being reverted by the veteran users in favour of unsourced (and false) information. At the time, I had to comply and swallow it, as the newbie I was. One year later, now with a reputation, I returned to the theme, reverted the whole thing and opened a public case there about falsification of information by said veteran user(s) - and that time it stood. This whole episode deeply marked me, and made absolutely clear that in Wikipedia there can be no tolerance for whatever lacks proper sources - something we actually often indulge in in paper encyclopedias, in my own experience. I'm very glad that the era of rampant tolerance with people adding unsourced content - something that was already against all good practices back in 2001 - is now a distant, sad memory. The quality of our Wikipedia skyrocketed since then, changing the paradigm from "Wikipedia is not reliable" to "Wikipedia is actually quite reliable, so much that I actually want to be there" all over the Lusophone world - and bringing new problems of its own. But that's undoubtedly the way to go, and it's sad it took so much time to actually implement what should have been there already from day 1.
Best, Paulo
Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com escreveu (quarta, 6/03/2024 à(s) 13:59):
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
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 ]]
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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check. 4. Sj: you also shared some feedback about the technical prototype for offering people Edit checks *while* they're typing https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:EditCheck_mid_edit_suggestions_idea_sketch_2024-05.webm. I'm going to follow up in more detail on mw:Talk:Edit_check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_check#Edit_Checks_as_you_are_typing . 1. And for people here: please, if you have a moment to review the demo https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:EditCheck_mid_edit_suggestions_idea_sketch_2024-05.webm, 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/Product_%26_Technology_OKRs#Draft_Key_Results (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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi for a future Editing Team Community Conversation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Editing_team/Community_Conversations.
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 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi&action=compare-post-revisions&topic_newRevision=y6wdvdpuuws1h58l and indicate as much by commenting here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi?
*== 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 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T367130 for this purpose.
In the meantime, Sj, I've added the idea you shared to the ticket where this work is happening: T367130 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T367130.
*== No firm rules ==* *> Not all changes require a source. *
Steven, we seem to be aligned in understanding Wikipedia:Verifiability https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q79951 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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing_team/Community_Conversations#Outcome_of_past_meetings,_January_2023 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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edit_Check_(References,_mobile).png 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.
If you want to continue the conversation around Edit Check's next steps, the Editing team will host a conversation on Wednesday 3 July 2024, 17:30 UTC https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1720027800. The subject is "Expanding Edit Check".
This meeting will be hosted on Zoom https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/87955642314, in English. You can signup on mediawiki.org https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing_team/Community_Conversations#Next_Conversation . The two main topics will be:
- CopyVio Check https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T359107: learn what volunteers think of the proposed user experience for the initial version of the CopyVio Check - Real-time Checks https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check#5_June_2024: learn what volunteers think about a version of Edit Check that would show people feedback, in real-time.
See you there! --
Benoît Evellin - Trizek (he/him)
Movement Communications Specialist (Product & Tech) Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:05 AM Peter Pelberg ppelberg@wikimedia.org wrote:
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:
- 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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check. 4. Sj: you also shared some feedback about the technical prototype for offering people Edit checks *while* they're typing https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:EditCheck_mid_edit_suggestions_idea_sketch_2024-05.webm. I'm going to follow up in more detail on mw:Talk:Edit_check https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_check#Edit_Checks_as_you_are_typing . 1. And for people here: please, if you have a moment to review the demo https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:EditCheck_mid_edit_suggestions_idea_sketch_2024-05.webm, 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/Product_%26_Technology_OKRs#Draft_Key_Results (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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi for a future Editing Team Community Conversation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Editing_team/Community_Conversations .
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 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi&action=compare-post-revisions&topic_newRevision=y6wdvdpuuws1h58l and indicate as much by commenting here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Y6vq68wgure4idsi?
*== 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 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T367130 for this purpose.
In the meantime, Sj, I've added the idea you shared to the ticket where this work is happening: T367130 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T367130.
*== No firm rules ==* *> Not all changes require a source. *
Steven, we seem to be aligned in understanding Wikipedia:Verifiability https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q79951 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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing_team/Community_Conversations#Outcome_of_past_meetings,_January_2023 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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edit_Check_(References,_mobile).png 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Romaine. You might be interested to learn about an ongoing project called Edit Check [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check].
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:59 AM Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
In the past days, a new Wikipedia contributor edited Wikipedia and made a great contribution, except... This user added zero sources, and the article in what the edit was made was about a living person. So the verifiability is a problem and in conflict with the policy Biographies of living persons. This was just one example of thousands that have to be dealt with every day in Wikimedia. And every day the community tries to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and has to deal with this kind of edits.
I asked myself the question: why did this new contributor not add any sources?
I logged out, went to an article and clicked edit. Made some modifications (in the Visual Editor), and then clicked Publish changes. In the steps I took to edit the article, I got nowhere a message that Wikipedia wants to have sources for the information I added. Nowhere!
I hope that every experienced user by now understands the importance of adding sources. But we cannot expect from new contributors to already know this. They need to be informed that adding sources is needed. They do not go first read the manual of Wikipedia with all the help and project pages, they just start editing right away. They think, link in many other platforms, that if they do something wrong, they get a message while editing/uploading/etc.
For some strange reason, if you edit Wikipedia, you get no notification at all that you need to add sources, even while this is one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia. The result is that a lot of work of these new contributors gets lost, because the information is removed from the articles because of a lack of sources. If those new users would have got a message in the Visual Editor during the editing, a lot more contributions would be able to stay in Wikipedia, less new contributors would get demotivated, and it would reduce the workload of existing users who do the maintenance every day.
As with the influx of edits without sources nothing is done, the Dutch expression "mopping with the tap open" (Dutch: dweilen met de kraan open) applies here.
Romaine
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org