Edit check
Offer people actionable feedback about Wikipedia policies while they are editing.
|
In the 2023?2024
fiscal year
, the Editing Team is working on a set of improvements for the
visual editor
to help new volunteers understand and follow some of the
policies and guidelines
necessary to make constructive changes to Wikipedia projects.
Below, you can find information about the goals of this project, the history that has informed it, and why the
Wikimedia Foundation's Product Department
is prioritizing this work.
Watch
Editing team/Community Conversations
for scheduled meetings about this project.
- Newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful.
- Moderators at the English and French Wikipedias will notice improvements in the quality of edits newcomers are making and be motivated to configure how Edit Check presents policies to them.
[
edit
]
On Tuesday (18 June), Reference Check
became available by default
at all Wikipedias except bn, de, en, hi, id, nl, pl, and ru.
[1]
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
Demo: Edit Checks while actively editing
Currently, people have the potential to encounter Edit Checks in one of two moments while editing:
- 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:
- Appear
within/alongside the editable document, in the moment when people make a change that causes a check to be activated
- 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
!
[
edit
]
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.
[
edit
]
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.
[
edit
]
Reference Reliability
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
.
[
edit
]
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.
[
edit
]
Active
Upcoming
- User script
- Edit check will soon be available via a
user script
. This will make it easier for volunteers to experiment with Edit check regardless of if and how it is deployed at the wiki they are wanting to assess it on.
- Multi-Check
- Currently, Edit Check is configured to show people one piece of feedback, regardless if other feedback might be warranted. The team is in the early stages of designing a user experience that will accommodate presenting people with multiple checks within a single edit.
[
edit
]
Next feature: Reference Reliability
The first Edit Check (
editcheck-references
) prompted people adding new content to include a reference when they did not do so themselves.
The
next Edit Check
will prompt people to replace a source when they attempt to cite a domain a project has deemed to be spam.
The Editing Team sees this as a first step towards a potential future where editing interfaces can use the consensus stored in pages like
w:WP:RSP
to offer people feedback about the source they are attempting to cite.
The designs we are exploring are pictured here.
We now need your help:
Which approach do you favor most?
What about that approach do you appreciate?
What questions/concerns do these approaches bring to your mind?
Please share what you think on the talk page!
[
edit
]
Last Wednesday (11 October 2023), Edit Check became available within the desktop and mobile visual editor at an initial set of wikis:
dag.wiki, ee.wiki, fat.wiki, gur.wiki, gpe.wiki, ha.wiki, kg.wiki, ln.wiki, tw.wiki
You can review the edits Edit Check was activated within by filtering Special:RecentChanges using the
editcheck-references-activated
tag.
[
edit
]
Reporting False Positives
Ahead of the first iteration of Edit check being
offered at an initial set of partner wikis
, there is a new page to report false positives:
Edit check/False positives
.
The page
draws inspiration from
Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives
.
It is designed to be an easy for people to:
- Report an edit they think Edit Check should
NOT
have been activated within and
- Propose changes to
how Edit Check is configured
We are curious to know what ? if any ? questions, concerns, and/or ideas
this new page
brings to mind.
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
Baseline metrics
Two of the metrics the Editing Team is planning to use to evaluate the impact of the initial reference check are:
- A decrease in the proportion of new content edits that are reverted
- 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.
[
edit
]
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
.
[
edit
]
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.
Tag
|
Description
|
Try it
|
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.
[
edit
]
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.
[
edit
]
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
.
[
edit
]
Informed by community conversations (still ongoing)
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
and a series of technical and design investigations
[6]
[7]
[8]
, during February the Editing Team became clear about the first version of Edit Check on mobile...
- 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.
[
edit
]
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.
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.
The visual editor's growing popularity among people who are new to editing Wikipedia
[9]
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:
- 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.
[10]
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- Equipping moderators with a new ability to specify the feedback inexperienced volunteers are presented with while they are editing
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.
[11]
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.
The Editing Team is centering the needs of people in this work who are:
- 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.
- Location:
Living in Sub-Saharan Africa
- Projects:
Contributing to the English and French Wikipedias
- 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.
[12]
- The movement struggles to retain editors who live outside Europe and North America.
[12]
- 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.
[13]
- 80% of registered editors in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute to English or French Wikipedia.
[14]
Reference Detection
[
edit
]
To start, the Editing Team is pursuing an approach with Edit Check that minimizes the likelihood of
false positives
and is implemented in ways
[15]
that empower volunteers, on a per-project basis, to evolve the heuristic
[16]
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:
- A minimum of one new paragraph of text is added to the article someone is editing
- The "new paragraph(s) of text" someone has added does NOT include a reference
- 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:
- 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
- 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
[
edit
]
Configurability
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
Mobile
[
edit
]
-
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.
-
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.
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
[
edit
]
Design for the desktop user experience is still underway.
See
T329579
.
Reference Check A/B Test
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
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.
- 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.
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
]
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
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
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.
The viability of the features introduced as part of the Edit Check project depends on the impacts it causes and averts.
[17]
This section describes the:
- Impacts
the features introduced as part of the Edit Check are intended to cause and avert
- Data
we will use to
help
[18]
determine the extent to which a feature has/has not
caused
a particular impact
- Evaluation methods
we will use to gather the data necessary to determine the impact of a given feature
Desirable Outcomes
[19]
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
[20]
|
A/B test
[21]
, 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
[21]
|
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:
- Helpful
- Supportive
- 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
[21]
|
Risks (Undesirable Outcomes)
[22]
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
[20]
|
A/B test
[21]
, 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
[20]
|
A/B test
[21]
, 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
[21]
|
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
[21]
|
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
[21]
|
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
[21]
, qualitative feedback received from volunteers about the accuracy and usefulness of Edit Check's current configuration
[23]
|
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
|
Please see
Deployment status#Deployment process
.
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)
|
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
|
|
|
Extension:AbuseFilter
|
Enables privileged users to set specific actions to be taken when actions by users, such as edits, match certain criteria.
|
|
Extension: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 Kuhn
,
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
|
|
???
|
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
|