On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM Steven Walling <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/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 < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected], >>>> 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/[email protected]/message/2J32V233R72OWB5W2DKGXIGBPVC6Y75B/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/45F47VN2KGKYF4Q42D7ZPZUKNUZHCNAU/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/7XIA22DBHKTV75CKEK4EE465GP4YSCQ3/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/KJSJYXO5Z4BHDLQWX4DQTUWZXD3QHC6H/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
