Jump to content

Kontrola úprav

Sledovač problémů: #EditCheck
From mediawiki.org
This page is a translated version of the page Edit check and the translation is 25% complete.
Languages:
Řešeno přes Phabricator
Úkol T265163
Projekty Wikimedia Foundation
Kontrola úprav
Nabízí lidem zpětnou vazbu o zásadách Wikipedie při úpravách.
Skupina: Editing
Začal: 2022-10-01
Členové týmu: David Chan, David Lynch, Esther Akinloose, Marielle Volz, Rummana Yasmeen, Nicolas Ayoub, Benoît Evellin
Historie změn: #EditCheck
Vedoucí: Ed Sanders
Vedení: Peter Pelberg (produkt), Valerie Puffet-Michel (inženýrství)

Ve fiskálním roce 2024–2025 pracuje Editační tým na řadě vylepšení pro vizuálního editoru, aby pomohl novým dobrovolníkům porozumět některým zásadám a směrnicím nezbytným k provedení konstruktivních změn v projektech Wikipedie.

Níže můžete najít informace o cílech tohoto projektu, historii, která jej ovlivnila, a proč Produktové oddělení Wikimedia Foundation upřednostňuje tuto práci.

Podívejte se na plánované schůzky Editing team/Community Conversations o tomto projektu.

Several features are available within Edit Check:

Cíle

  1. Nováčci a mladší přispěvatelé ze subsaharské Afriky se budou při úpravách cítit dostatečně bezpečně a sebevědomě, aby mohli publikovat změny, na které jsou hrdí a které zkušení dobrovolníci považují za užitečné.
  2. Moderátoři na anglické a francouzské Wikipedii si všimnou zlepšení v kvalitě úprav, které nováčci provádějí, a budou motivováni nakonfigurovat, jak jim kontrola úprav prezentuje zásady.

Stav

Paste Check mobile user experience walkthrough.

Paste Check

Here is a 4-minute video recording that walks through the proposed user experience for Paste Check.

We hope this helps you all help us answering the open questions we are thinking through.

Mockup showing how Paste Check might appear to people pasting text into the visual editor.
Mockup showing how Paste Check might appear to people pasting text into the visual editor.

Next Check

The Editing Team is actively working on a new Edit Check: Paste Check.

Paste Check will prompt people pasting text into an article to confirm whether they did or did not write the content they attempting to add.

Now that the general scaffolding of the user experience is in place, we need help answering some open questions.

You can find the questions we need help answering on the talk page.

Note: thank you to @Pikne and Lectrician1 who helped inspire this Check.[1][2]

Edit Check work is ongoing in a few areas:

Selena Deckelmann Demo'ing Reference Check at 2024 Wikimania
Reference Check demo at Wikimania (2024) by Selena Deckelmann, Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Product and Technology Officer
  1. T341308 - Refining the user experience for showing multiple Edit Checks within a single edit
  2. T360591 - Developing an API to increase the speed and ease with which new Edit Checks and Suggested Edits can be introduced within/alongside the visual editor.
  3. T364505 - Creating a UI framework to ensure people experience new Edit Checks and Suggested Edits as part of a common language
  4. T368274 - Researching the feasibility of using a large language model to detect peacock behavior within the edits people are making.

Looking ahead, the Editing Team will continue developing Edit Check during the 2024-2025 fiscal year. This work will support the Wiki Experiences Objective.

In other Edit Check news:

This Wednesday (3 July) from 17:30 until 18:50 UTC, the Editing Team will host the next Community Conversation.

Wednesday's conversation will be focused on the following Edit Check-related topics:

  1. Discussing the user experience for Paste Check. This next Edit Check we'll be introducing is meant to help newcomers adding new content unknowingly make a copyright violation.
  2. Reviewing the state of the Edit Check proejct. What Checks are available at what wikis? What new Check are being planned? More broadly, what strategy is guiding the Edit Check in this coming year? Etc.

On Tuesday (18 June), Reference Check became available by default at all Wikipedias except bn, de, en, hi, id, nl, pl, and ru.[3]

Screenshot showing the feedback people will receive when attempting to link to a blocked domain within the visual editor.
Feedback people will receive when attempting to link to a blocked domain within the visual editor.

Beginning Thursday (13 June), people who attempt to add an external link in the visual editor (desktop and mobile) will receive immediate feedback when they attempt to link to a domain a project has decided to block.

Link Check (as we are calling it) evaluates all external domains people attempt to link to against the following sources:

  • Local lists: MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json and MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
  • Global list: meta:Spam_blacklist

Technical demo showing what it could be like for Edit Checks to appear within/alongside the editable surface.

Demo: Edit Checks while actively editing

Currently, people have the potential to encounter Edit Checks in one of two moments while editing:

  1. In the publishing flow, when people attempt to publish new content without a reference

In Citoid, when people attempt to cite a domain that a project has deemed worthy of blocking

While presenting Checks in the moments above have proven effective, for a while, volunteers and staff have been sharing ideas for Checks that could appear while people are actively adding/changing content within the article.

With this initial technical demo, the Editing Team is exploring what it could be like for Checks to:

  1. Appear within/alongside the editable document, in the moment when people make a change that causes a check to be activated
  2. Respond when people make a change that impacts the Check that they activated

What do you think about this idea? What questions/concerns/ideas/etc. does it bring to mind?

Please share what you think on the talk page!

References check A/B report is now available. Reference Check caused an increase in the quality of edits newcomers publish and did not cause any significant disruption.

Initial results of Edit Check A/B test (T342930) have returned the following results:

  • Newcomers and junior contributors are 2.3 times more likely to add a new reference to a new content edit when edit check is available.
  • No drastic decreases in edit completion and edit abandonment rate were observed.
  • Edit check is especially impactful for newcomers and users on mobile.
  • We observed a slight decrease to no changes in the edit quality where edit check was shown compared to where it was not.
  • It does increase the proportion of new content edits with a reference that are reverted. We need to investigate impact further.

As a consequence, Edit Check was deployed as default on the A/B wikis.

Reference Reliability

  • Reference Reliability (mobile)
    Reference Reliability (mobile)
  • Reference Reliability (desktop)
    Reference Reliability (desktop)

On 7 March, the first iteration Reference Reliability check became available to everyone at all wikis, by default.

This means that whenever anyone attempts to cite a source that a project has blocked, they will be made aware directly within Citoid and prompted to try another source.

Where "blocked" on in this context means the domain someone is attempting to cite is lited on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.

Active

  • Reference Check deployments - the first Edit Check (references) is now live at 22 wikis. The new set of wikis is for an A/B test. We will verify if users interact with the check and keep editing.
  • Multi-Check - Currently, Edit Check is configured to show people one piece of feedback, regardless if other feedback might be warranted. The design of the user experience is in progress to display multiple checks within a single edit.

Upcoming

  • Reference Reliability - Reference Reliability informs users if a source is listed under MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json. It will be deployed along with the A/B test of Reference Check.

Aktivní

A screenshot showing a newcomer at ha.wiki accompanying the new content they were adding with a reference after mw:Edit check prompted them to do so.
Nováček na ha.wiki doprovází nový obsah, který přidávali, odkazem poté, co je vyzval ke kontrole úprav (Edit Check).

Nadcházející

  • A mockup showing what a user experience that presents people with multiple Edit Checks within a single edit could look like.
    Raná maketa toho, jak by mohla uživatelská zkušenost s více kontrolami vypadat.
    Uživatelský skript - Edit Check bude brzy k dispozici prostřednictvím uživatelského skriptu . To dobrovolníkům usnadní experimentování s Edit Checkem bez ohledu na to, zda a jak je nasazen na wiki, na které ji chtějí hodnotit.
  • Vícenásobná kontrola - V současné době je Edit Check nakonfigurován tak, aby lidem zobrazoval jednu zpětnou vazbu, bez ohledu na to, zda může být oprávněná jiná zpětná vazba. Tým je v rané fázi navrhování uživatelského prostředí, které umožní lidem prezentovat více kontrol v rámci jediné úpravy.

Screenshots showing four different potential design directions for the desktop user experience of the next Edit Check: Reference Reliability.
Edit Check (Reference Reliability) konstrukční průzkumy

Další vlastnost: Referenční spolehlivost

První kontrola úprav (editcheck-references) vyzvala lidi, kteří přidávali nový obsah, aby zahrnuli odkaz, pokud tak neučinili sami.

Další Edit Check vyzve lidi, aby nahradili zdroj, když se pokusí citovat doménu, kterou projekt považuje za spam.

Editační tým to vidí jako první krok k potenciální budoucnosti, kde editační rozhraní mohou využívat konsensus uložený na stránkách jako w:WP:RSP k tomu, aby lidem nabídla zpětnou vazbu o zdroji, který se snaží citovat.

Zde jsou vyobrazeny návrhy, které zkoumáme.

Nyní potřebujeme vaši pomoc: Jaký přístup preferujete nejvíce? Co na takovém přístupu oceňujete? Jaké otázky/znepokojení vám tyto přístupy přinášejí?

Prosím, sdílejte svůj názor na diskusní stránce!

[[File:Recent Changes filtered for Edit Check edits.png|alt=A screenshot showing Special:RecentChanges filtered for edits Edit Check was activated within|thumb|Edit Check zkontrolujte na [ha.wiki]] Minulou středu (11. října 2023) byla možnost Edit Check dostupná ve vizuálním editoru pro počítače a mobilní zařízení na úvodní sadě wiki: dag.wiki, ee.wiki, fat.wiki, gur.wiki, gpe.wiki, ha.wiki, kg.wiki, ln.wiki, tw.wiki

Úpravy, v nichž byla aktivován Edit Check, můžete zkontrolovat filtrováním Special:RecentChanges pomocí značky editcheck-references-activated.

Screenshot showing the Edit Check false positive reporting page
Upravit stránku pro hlášení falešně pozitivních výsledků kontroly

Reporting False Positives

Před první iterací kontroly úprav, která byla nabídnuta na úvodní sadě partnerských wikin, existuje nová stránka pro hlášení falešných poplachů: Edit check/False positives .

Stránka čerpá inspiraci z Wikipedie:Upravit filtr/Nepravdivá pozitiva. Je navržen tak, aby lidem usnadnil:

  1. Nahlášení úpravy, o které si myslí, že kontrola úprav by NEměla být aktivována v a
  2. Navržení změny nakonfigurování kontroly úprav

We are curious to know what – if any – questions, concerns, and/or ideas this new page brings to mind.

A screenshot showing Edit Check prompting someone to add a reference to a new paragraph they added to an en.wiki article.
Edit Check in production (en.wiki)

Trying Edit Check in production

As of today, anyone can try Edit Check by editing any Wikipedia page in the main namespace using VisualEditor.

To try Edit Check, append the following parameter to the URL of the page you would like to edit: ecenable=1. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jollof_rice?veaction=edit&ecenable=1

A bart chart showing the proportion of new content edits that include a reference, grouped by experience level
Proportion of new content edits that include a reference

Baseline metrics

A chart showing the proportion of new content edits reverted, grouped by user experience level
Proportion of new content edits reverted by user experience level

Two of the metrics the Editing Team is planning to use to evaluate the impact of the initial reference check are:

  1. A decrease in the proportion of new content edits that are reverted
  2. An increase in the proportion of new content edits that include references

To help set targets for the two metrics named above, we recently completed a baseline analysis. Here's some of what we learned:

  • Across all Wikipedias, new content edits that include a reference are ~2x less likely to be reverted (6.2%) than edits that do not include a reference (11.5%)
  • Across all Wikipedias, newcomers and junior editors are less likely to include a new reference with new content edits compared to more senior editors.
    • Of all the new content edits newcomers make across Wikipedias, 12% of these edits include a reference.
    • Of all the new content edits people who have made >500 cumulative edits across Wikipedias, 26% of these edits edit include a reference

You can see per wiki breakdowns in the full report here.

Storing and show decline responses

In March, we shared plans to present people who decline to add a source when Edit Check prompts them to do so with a way to share why they made this decision.

This past week, we converged on how Edit Check will initially make these responses available to experienced volunteers...

To start, the reason someone selects for declining to add a reference when Edit Check invites them to do so will get logged as an edit tag that is "appended" to that edit.

The definitions for these yet-to-be defined tags will eventually be stored here: Edit check/Tags .

Two new change tags

This week, two new Edit Check-related change tags became available that you can use to filter Special:RecentChanges.

These tags will help us collectively evaluate the extent to which the reference Edit Check increases the likelihood that people accompany the new content they're adding with a reference.

Značka Popis Zkus
editcheck-newreference Edits made with the visual editor that involve people adding a new reference to an article in the main namespace. en.wiki, fr.wiki
editcheck-newcontent Edits made with the visual editor that involve people adding new content to article in the main namespace en.wiki, fr.wiki

Note: the logic that determine when the two tags get applied is the same logic that is used to decide whether people should be presented with the reference Edit Check.

Reference Edit Check demo (mobile)

Edit Check Prototype (mobile) ready

A prototype for the first Edit Check is ready! Now, we need your help identifying how it might need to be fixed and improved before being enabled in production as a beta feature.

You can find instructions for trying out the Edit Check prototype and sharing feedback about on the talk page: Seeking Feedback: Edit Check Prototype .

For context, this first Edit Check that will prompt newcomers who are contributing new content without including a corresponding reference to consider doing so.

A screenshot showing what people will see who ''decline'' to ad a citation when Edit Check invites them to do so.
What people who ''decline'' to add a citation when Edit Check invites them to do so might see.

First version

The first version of Edit Check is almost ready for you all to try!

Within the next week, you can expect us to share a link to a test wiki where you can try the Edit Check prototype.

This first iteration will invite people who add more than 50 new characters to an article in the main namespace to include a reference in the edit they're making, IF they have not already done so themselves.

In the meantime, you can see the kinds of edits EditCheck currently thinks warrant a reference, by filtering Recent changes using the newly-introduced editcheck-references tag. View the tag on en.wiki and fr.wiki.

Informed by community conversations (still ongoing)[4][5][6][7] and a series of technical and design investigations[8][9][10], during February the Editing Team became clear about the first version of Edit Check on mobile...

Snímek obrazovky zobrazující dialog v mobilním vizuálním editoru, který vyzve lidi, aby přidali referenci, pokud tak neučiní sami.
Počáteční verze mobilního prostředí Kontrola úprav, která lidi vyzve k přidání reference.
  • User Experience: the first version of Edit Check will introduce a new step within the mobile visual editor's publishing workflow that people will see if/when they add new content without a reference. Design for the desktop user experience is still underway. See T329579.
  • Usability Testing: to learn whether people understand and can intuitively navigate the mobile Edit Check workflow, we will soon begin a series of usability tests. See T327356.
  • Technical Investigation: Edit Check will use a "transaction-based" approach for determining what new content is added within a given edit session. Work on developing a way to detect individual sentences is ongoing in T324363.
  • Initial Heuristic: To start, the initial Edit Check heuristic will be relatively straightforward in so far as it will prompt people to decide whether the change they are making warrants a reference if/when they are adding a new paragraph and that paragraph does not already contain a reference. See T324730 and T329988#8654867.

Next up: the Editing Team will be implementing the initial Edit Check heuristic (T324730) and a corresponding hidden change tag (T324733) so that we – volunteers and members of the Editing Team – can evaluate the extent to which the reference check heuristic is getting initiated in expected cases.

Work on Edit Check is underway! Below you will find an overview of what the Editing Team is actively working on…

  • Community conversations: Between October 2022 and January 2023, the Editing Team hosted seven community conversations to learn what contributing to Wikipedia has been like for people living in and from Sub-Saharan Africa. Next week, you can expect the team to publish the findings from these conversations and how they will inform the work we do on this project.
  • Initial Focus: The first feature the team will be introducing is one that checks whether the new content people are attempting to add includes a reference. Learn more in the Strategy and Approach section below.
  • Design: The team is actively working on a proposal for what the mobile user experience for the first reference check could be like. In the coming weeks, we will be inviting volunteers to help us revise and refine these designs. In the meantime, you can follow along with this work in Phabricator.
  • Talking with experienced volunteers: for the "reference check" to be useful to inexperienced and experienced volunteers alike, it will need to guide people to cite references in ways that projects expect. In the coming weeks, we'll begin conversations with experienced volunteers to learn what these expectations are so that we can ensure Edit Check is configured in ways that align with them.
  • Technical investigations: For the "reference check" to work, the software will need to know when people are attempting to add new content, whether that new content warrants a reference, and whether it currently contains a reference. The Editing Engineering team is currently doing a series of technical investigations to decide how we will approach building this functionality.

Strategie a přístup

To equip newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa with the know-how and tools to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful, the Editing Team will be introducing new functionality within the visual editor (desktop and mobile ) that will check the changes people are attempting to make and present them with actions they can take to improve these changes in ways that will align with established Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The first "check" the Editing Team will be introducing is one that will detect when people are attempting to add new content to an existing article without a corresponding reference and prompt them to do so. The functionality will be accompanied by a complimentary set of features that will enable moderators to configure the user experience newcomers and Junior Contributors will see to ensure the software is guiding them to take actions that align with project policies and conventions.

Challenges

The visual editor's growing popularity among people who are new to editing Wikipedia[11] leads us to think that the editing experience has been reasonably successful at helping inexperienced volunteers learn the technical skills necessary to publish changes to Wikipedia.

The trouble is that the visual editor and other editing interfaces do not make people aware of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines they are expected to follow.

As a result, the changes inexperienced volunteers publish often break established best practices and lead to undesirable outcomes for inexperienced volunteers, experienced volunteers, and Wikipedia projects as a whole:

  1. Inexperienced volunteers become disappointed and frustrated when the good-faith change(s) they arrived to the wiki seeking to make are undone (read: reverted), deleted, and/or scrutinized in inequitable ways. These poor interactions are demotivating and drive these could-be volunteers and community members, and the knowledge that are uniquely positioned to offer, away.[12]
  2. Experienced volunteers/moderators need to do more work reverting low-quality edits and posting messages on inexperienced volunteers' talk pages to make them aware of the policies and/or guidelines they are likely to have unknowingly broken. Continually needing to educate inexperienced volunteers and undo their changes can lead to experienced volunteers becoming skeptical of inexperienced volunteers and impatient with them.
  3. Wikipedia projects struggle to grow and diversify their volunteer populations and shrink the knowledge gaps present within Wikimedia wikis.

This project seeks to address the challenges above by:

  1. Offering inexperienced volunteers relevant and actionable feedback about Wikipedia policies in the precious moments when they are in the midst of making a change using the visual editor.
  2. Equipping moderators with a new ability to specify the feedback inexperienced volunteers are presented with while they are editing

Theory of change

This project is built on the belief that by surfacing relevant guidance in the precious moments when inexperienced volunteers are in the midst of making a change to Wikipedia and equipping them with the know-how and tools necessary to apply this guidance, they will make changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers value.

In the longer term, the Editing Team thinks that people who are new, particularly people who have historically been excluded from and harmed by established power structures, will feel safe and motivated making changes to Wikipedia if they can accurately predict whether the changes they are attempting to make are aligned with existing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and/or cultural conventions.

More broadly, the Editing Team thinks that to evolve towards a future where wikis' policies and cultural norms – and ultimately, content – reflect the diverse experiences of the people these projects are intended to serve, we first need to make the norms and standards that are currently in place legible and actionable to people while they are editing.[13] This way, volunteers can develop shared awareness of cases where these norms and standards are not having the impacts they were intended to have and decide what – if any – changes they think are worth making to them in response.

Primary audiences

The Editing Team is centering the needs of people in this work who are:

  1. Experience: Learning the basics of contributing to Wikipedia
    • In the context of this project, we are considering people who are still "learning the basics" to be people who have published <100 cumulative edits to a single, or multiple, Wikipedias. This includes people who are editing Wikipedia for the first time.
  2. Location: Living in Sub-Saharan Africa
  3. Projects: Contributing to the English and French Wikipedias
  4. Motivation: Seeking to fill gaps they notice within Wikipedia

The four focus criteria listed above are outgrowths of:

  • Newcomers are two times more likely to live in Africa or Asia.[14]
  • The movement struggles to retain editors who live outside Europe and North America.[14]
  • People from Sub-Saharan Africa are underrepresented within the movement: people from Sub-Saharan Africa represent only 1% of active unique editors, despite representing 15% of the global population and 7% of the global internet population.[15]
  • 80% of registered editors in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute to English or French Wikipedia.[16]


Viz též: community conversations


Design

Reference Detection

To start, the Editing Team is pursuing an approach with Edit Check that minimizes the likelihood of false positives and is implemented in ways[17] that empower volunteers, on a per-project basis, to evolve the heuristic[18] to become more robust over time.

This strategy amounts to the initial reference Edit Check becoming activated if/when all of the following conditions are met:

  1. A minimum of one new paragraph of text is added to the article someone is editing
  2. The "new paragraph(s) of text" someone has added does NOT include a reference
  3. The changes described in "1." and "2." are happening on a page within the main namespace (NS:0)

The conditions above are implemented and maintained in code here: editcheck/init.js.

The Editing Team arrived at the decision to start with a relatively limited and straightforward set of rules in order to:

  1. Increase the likelihood that newcomers and Junior Contributors find the guidance Edit Check is presenting them with, and the editing experience more broadly, to be intuitive and straightforward so that they feel encourage to return to edit again
  2. Decrease the likelihood that Edit Check is creating more work for experienced volunteers by prompting newcomers and Junior Contributors to add sources when they are not needed

You can learn more about the assumptions that informed the thinking above in phab:T329988#8654867.

Other applications


Viz též: Edit check/Ideas

Configurability

The Editing Team thinks it is crucial that moderators be empowered to configure when, and for whom, Edit Check becomes activated. This way, they can be confident the software is promoting behavior they deem to be productive and modify the software when it is not.

In line with the above, and drawing inspiration from how the Edit filter and Growth Team Community configuration systems afford volunteers the ability to audit and configure how they function on-wiki, Edit Check will enable volunteers, on a per project basis to:

  • Audit and edit the logic that determines when the reference Edit Check becomes activated and
  • Review the edits people who are shown Edit Check are making

Work to implement the above is ongoing in phab:T327959.

User Experience

Mobile

  • The initial version of the mobile Edit Check experience that will prompt people to decide whether they want to add a reference or not.
    The initial version of the mobile Edit Check experience that will prompt people to decide whether they want to add a reference or not.
  • Positive feedback people will receive when they elect to add a reference as a result of Edit Check inviting them to do so.
    Positive feedback people will receive when they elect to add a reference as a result of Edit Check inviting them to do so.
  • A screen that invites people who choose not to add a reference to share why.
    A screen that invites people who choose not to add a reference to share why.
  • An overview of the various screens within the mobile Edit Check experience.
    An overview of the various screens within the mobile Edit Check experience.

The first version of Edit Check will introduce a new step within the mobile visual editor's publishing workflow that people will see if/when they add new content without a reference.

Desktop

Design for the desktop user experience is still underway. See T329579.

Experiments

Reference Check A/B Test

To learn whether the Reference Edit Check is effective at causing newcomers to make edits they intended and experienced volunteers value, we conducted an A/B test with 15 Wikipedias.

Below you can read more about what this experiment demonstrated, what the Editing Team is planning in response, and more details about the test's design.

Conclusion and next step(s)

Reference Check caused an increase in the quality of edits newcomers publish and did not cause any significant disruption.

This combination is leading the Editing Team to be confident that offering Reference Check as a default-on feature would have a net positive impact on all wikis and the people who contribute to them.

You can read the full A/B test report here.

Findings

There was 2x increase in the proportion of new content edits by newcomers, Junior contributors, and unregistered users that included a reference when Reference Check was shown to eligible edits.

New content edits *with* a reference

People shown the Reference Check are 2.2 times more likely to publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).

  • Increases were observed across all reviewed user types, wikis, and platforms.
  • The highest observed increase was on mobile where contributors are 4.2 times more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown to eligible edits.

Revert rate

  • New content edit revert rate decreased by 8.6% if Reference Check was available.
    • New content edits by contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa are 53% less likely to be reverted when Reference Check is shown to eligible edits.
    • We observed increases on both desktop and mobile. On mobile, users are 4.2 times more likely to include a reference with their new content when the reference check is shown to eligible edits.
      While some non-constructive new content edits with a reference were introduced by this feature (5 percentage point increase), there was a higher proportion of constructive new content edits with a reference added (23.4 percentage point increase). As a result, we observed an overall increase in the quality of new content edits.
There was a -8.6% decrease in the revert rate of all new content edits comparing edits where Reference Check was shown in the test group to edits that were eligible but not shown Reference Check in the control group.

Constructive Retention Rate

  • Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a non-reverted edit are 16 percent more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
    • This increase was primarily observed for desktop edits. There was a non-statistically significant difference observed on mobile.

Guardrails

Edit Completion Rate

  • We observed no drastic decreases in edit completion rate from intent to save (where Reference Check is shown) to save success overall or by wiki.
  • Overall, there was a 10% decrease in edit completion rate for edits where Reference Check was shown.
    • There was a higher observed decrease in edit completion rate on mobile compared to desktop. On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3% while on desktop it decreased by -3.1%.

Block Rate

  • There were decreases or no changes in the rate of users blocked after after being shown Reference Check and publishing an edit compared to users in the control group.

False Negative Rate

  • There was a low false negative rate. Only 1.8% of all published new content edits in the test group did not include a new reference and were not shown Reference Check.

False Positive Rate

  • 6.6% of contributors dismissed adding a citation because they indicated the new content being added does not need a reference. This was the least selected decline option overall.

Test design

11 Wikipedias participated in the test. At each wiki, 50% of users were randomly assigned to a test group and 50% were assigned to a control group.

Users in the test group were shown the Reference Check notice prompting them to decide whether the new content they were adding need a reference (if they had not already added one themselves).

User in the control group were shown the default editing experience, even if they did not accompany the new content they were adding with a reference.

Timing

This analysis was completed on 16 April 2024 and analyzed engagement data at the 11 participating wikis from 18 February 2024 through 4 April 2024.

Evaluating impact

The viability of the features introduced as part of the Edit Check project depends on the impacts it causes and averts.[19]

This section describes the:

  1. Impacts the features introduced as part of the Edit Check are intended to cause and avert
  2. Data we will use to help[20] determine the extent to which a feature has/has not caused a particular impact
  3. Evaluation methods we will use to gather the data necessary to determine the impact of a given feature
Desirable Outcomes[21]
ID Outcome Data Evaluation Method(s)
1. Increase the quality of edits newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa publish in the main namespace Decrease in the proportion of published edits that add new content and are reverted within 48 hours or have a high revision risk score

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[22]

A/B test[23], qualitative feedback (e.g. talk page discussions, false positive reporting)
2. Increase the likelihood that newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa will accompany the new content they are adding with a reference Increase in the percentage of published edits that add new content and include a reference

Increase in the percent of newcomers or Junior Contributors from SSA that publish at least one new content edit that includes a reference

Increase in the likelihood that someone includes a reference the next time they contribute new content.

A/B test[23]
3. Newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa will report feeling safe and confident making changes to Wikipedia Newcomers and Junior Contributors find the feedback and calls to action Edit Check presents them with to be:
  1. Helpful
  2. Supportive
  3. Motivating
 Qualitative feedback via channels like:Community Calls, talk pages, event organizers, etc.
4. Experienced volunteers will independently audit and iterate upon Edit Check's default configurations to ensure Edit Check is causing newcomers and Junior Contributors to make productive edits.
5. Newcomers and Junior Contributors will be more aware of the need to add a reference when contributing new content because the visual editor will prompt them to do so in cases where they have not done so themselves. Increase in the percent of newcomers or Junior Contributors from SSA that publish at least one new content edit that includes a reference. A/B test[23]
Risks (Undesirable Outcomes)[24]
ID Outcome Data Evaluation Method(s)
1. Edit quality decreases Increase in the proportion of published edits that add new content and are reverted within 48 hours or have a high revision risk score

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[22]

A/B test[23], qualitative review and feedback
2. Edits become more difficult to patrol because unreliable citations are difficult to detect Significant increase in the percentage of new content edits new and developing volunteers make that include a reference

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[22]

A/B test[23], qualitative review and feedback
3. Edit completion rate drastically decreases Proportion of edits that are started (event.action = init) that are successfully published (event.action = saveSuccess). A/B test[23]
4. Edit abandonment rate drastically increases Proportion of contributors that are presented Edit Check feedback and abandon their edits (indicated by event.action = abort and event.abort_type = abandon) A/B test[23]
5. Blocks increase Proportion of contributors blocked after publishing an edit where Edit Check was shown is significantly higher than edits in which Edit Check was not shown A/B test[23]
6. High false positive or false negative rates Proportion of new content edits published without a reference and without being shown Edit Check (indicator of false negative)

Proportion of contributors that dismiss adding a citation and select "I didn't add new information" or other indicator that the change they are making doesn't require a citation

A/B test[23], qualitative feedback received from volunteers about the accuracy and usefulness of Edit Check's current configuration [25]
7. Edit Check is too resource intensive to scale Efficiencies do not emerge over time making each new Edit Check as "expensive" to implement as the first one Qualitative assessment by the Edting team

Deployment process

Please see Deployment status#Deployment process .

Background

Volunteers throughout the movement have a long history of working to:

  • Proactively educate and guide newcomers to make changes they feel proud of and changes that improve Wikipedia
  • Prevent people from publishing destructive changes, and
  • React to and moderate changes to Wikipedia articles.

The Editing Team and this project have been inspired by these efforts, some of which are listed below. If there is a project or resource you think we should be aware of, please add it here!

Initiative Description Initiator(s)
Corrector ortográfico, Helferlein/Rechtschreibprüfung, ויקיפדיה:סקריפטים/בודק איות, Revisor_ortográfico A tool that checks pages loaded in the browser against a list of common spelling errors. Poco_a_poco, Benutzer:APPER, :משתמש:ערן, Elisardojm
Error Finder A tool to find common errors in Persian texts Reza1615
Wish: Warn when large amount of content has been copy-pasted A wish to warn people who are pasting text into Wikipedia and to annotate edits in which this occurs so that patroller can consider this as they are reviewing edits/looking for edits to review. Matěj_Suchánek
fr:Projet:Articles sans sources (along with 3 other wikiprojects) A WikiProject intended to add sources to articles that need them
CopyPatrol Tool that allows you to see recent Wikipedia edits that are flagged as possible copyright violations Community Tech Team
paper: Automatically Neutralizing Subjective Bias in Text Method for automatically bringing inappropriately subjective text into a neutral point of view ("neutralizing" biased text). Reid Pryzant, Richard Diehl Martinez, Nathan Dass, Sadao Kurohashi, Dan Jurafsky, Diyi Yang
Wikipedia:Citation watchlist User script that adds visual indicators to watchlist and recent changes entries when unreliable sources are added to articles. Harej, Ocaasi
Internet Archive Reference Explorer Explore references included in Wikipedia articles via a range of criteria
WikiScore A tool created to validate edits and count scores of participants in wikicontests.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector This tool attempts to detect copyright violations in articles. The Earwig
CiteUnseen A user script that adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, providing readers and editors a quick initial evaluation of citations at a glance. SuperHamster
Credibility bot Monitors and collects data on source usage within Wikipedia articles Harej
Salebot (fr.wiki) A counter-vandalism bot that uses regex to identify issues.
Edit intros (en.wiki) A message is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people.
Make edit notices more visible in Visual Editor How might we make it so people who are in the midst of an edit are likely to see and "internalize" the information that is currently presented within Edit Notices? User:Stjn
Internet Archive Reference Explorer Automatically detect source quality Ocaasi
Wish: Reference requirement for new article creation Require new article to include references User:Mega809
Edit Notices Enables individual volunteers and projects to display a custom notice above the edit form, depending on the page, namespace, or other circumstances.
Page notices
Maintenance templates
Rozšíření:AbuseFilter Enables privileged users to set specific actions to be taken when actions by users, such as edits, match certain criteria.
Rozšíření:Disambiguator Displays a notification in the 2006/2010 wikitext editor whenever one adds a link to a disambiguation page. Community Tech
ORES Halfak (WMF)
Suggested Edits
CiteHighlighter Highlights 1800 sources green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability. Novem Linguae
Checkwiki Helps clean up syntax and other errors in the source code of Wikipedia Stefan Kühn, Bgwhite
Edit Diff Tagging Showcases all the different tags that can be automatically determined (generally via basic heuristics) for a given Wikipedia edit diff. Isaac (WMF)
CivilityCheck A project to evaluate the civility in the comments of Wikipedia discussions in order to address the problem of abuse that leads to declining editorship within the Wiki community. Deus Nsenga, Baelul Haile, David Ihim, and Elan Houticolo-Retzler
BOTutor A bot that sends a message to people who attempt to publish an edit that triggers an existing set of rules ValeJappo
Gadget-autocomplete.js ערן
Text reactions A proposal that would make it possible for the editing interface to react to what the people enter in the editing area SD0001
Editwizard A step-by-step process for guiding newcomers to source the content they are attempting to add to Wikipedia articles Ankit18gupta, Enterprisey, Firefly, and SD0001
Headbomb/unreliable "The script breaks down links to various sources in different 'severities' of unreliability. In general, the script is kept in sync with WP:RSPSOURCES, {{Predatory open access source list}}, WP:NPPSG, WP:SPSLIST (not fully implemented yet) and WP:CITEWATCH, with some minor differences." Headbomb, SD0001
The Wikipedia Adventure Game based on the tech of Extension:GuidedTour that teaches basic wikitext markup and the rules about reliable sources and neutral point of view. Research into its effectiveness is described at meta:Research:Impact of The Wikipedia Adventure on new editor retention. Ocaasi
w:Help:Introduction The primary tutorial for new editors at English Wikipedia, covering both policies and technical how-to for VisualEditor and wiki markup. Most recently overhauled in late 2020 and more actively maintained than TWA. Sdkb, Evolution and evolvability, and others
User:Phlsph7/
HighlightUnreferencedPassages 		A user script to highlight passages that lack references with a red background. Its main purpose is to help users quickly identify unreferenced passages, paragraphs, and sections in mainspace articles and drafts Phlsph7
Wish: Add notice to the visual editor that unsourced edits may be reverted A notice in the "Publish changes" dialogue of the visual editor that states that unsourced edits will be reverted User:Lectrician1
Wish: Warn when adding a url reference that matches the SpamBlacklist Warn when the url added as reference is registered in the SpamBlacklist, and thus prevent the warning from appearing when saving the page. User:DSan
Edit FIler #686 Edit Filter that is triggered when a new user possibly adding unreferenced material to BLP User:Rich Farmbrough
WikiLearn Platform for training
DannyS712/copyvio-check.js Automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar. DannyS712
XLinkBot A bot that warns people who have added an external link that is inappropriate in some way. Versageek, Beetstra

See also

References

  1. ↑ T300942#9597055 via @Pikne
  2. ↑ T300942#9597611
  3. ↑ Reference Check will be made available to remaining wikis via T366381 and T367343.
  4. ↑ Editing team/Community Conversations#January 2023
  5. ↑ T327330
  6. ↑ Talk:Edit check#So glad to see!
  7. ↑ en:When should newcomers be prompted to add sources?
  8. ↑ T324364
  9. ↑ T323145
  10. ↑ T326856
  11. ↑ Superset: Wikipedia edits by interface and experience level
  12. ↑ Growth Team: IP editing Research Report
  13. ↑ The Tyranny of Structurelessness
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Community Insights 2021 Report
  15. ↑ Regional Quarterly Learning Sessions (June 2022, google document)
  16. ↑ Superset
  17. ↑ T327959
  18. ↑ T324730
  19. ↑ Where "viability" in this context refers to a feature being fit for being scaled to all projects as determined by the extent to which it has been proven to have a net positive impact on wikis and the volunteers who build and maintain them.
  20. ↑ Emphasis on "help" seeing as how all decisions will depend on a variety of data, all of which need to be weighted and considered to make informed decisions.
  21. ↑ T325838: Finish Edit Check measurement plan proposal
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 At every project where Edit Check is available, volunteers will be able to use the editcheck-reference-activated tag to review edits where the reference check is shown to people in the process of publishing an edit. Learn more about Edit Check tags.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 [Analysis] Run an A/B test to evaluate Edit Check (references) impact
  24. ↑ T325851: Conduct pre-mortem for Edit Check project
  25. ↑ In addition to existing feedback channels (Phabricator, talk pages, etc.) there will be a minimum of two additional ways for people to share feedback about Edit Check: A) reporting edits that you think Edit Check should not have been shown within and B) declining to add a reference mid-edit by indicating you think Edit Check was shown when it shouldn't have been.
Retrieved from "https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Edit_check/cs&oldid=6853761"