On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:55 AM Todd Allen <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> 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] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/KFLTDSSCVFIKNZD4T3VO5VFL7TA72V5F/ > 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/OD5EMNLFDYZSZUYAEKGBDQQNJY2ACJR4/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
