If those edits were going to be unsourced junk, decreasing them is good. Todd
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024, 12:56 Steven Walling <steven.wall...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM Steven Walling <steven.wall...@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 <ppelb...@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 < >>> paulospern...@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.w...@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/message/2J32V233R72OWB5W2DKGXIGBPVC6Y75B/ >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/45F47VN2KGKYF4Q42D7ZPZUKNUZHCNAU/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7XIA22DBHKTV75CKEK4EE465GP4YSCQ3/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KJSJYXO5Z4BHDLQWX4DQTUWZXD3QHC6H/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KFLTDSSCVFIKNZD4T3VO5VFL7TA72V5F/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
