In T360829#9655634, @mpopov wrote:

From https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Newcomer_tasks/Experiment_analysis,_November_2020#Detailed_findings

Constructive activation: the effect is larger when looking only at constructive activation. Newcomers with Growth features are 26.7% more likely to make a first unreverted article edit. On our four pilot wikis, the baseline constructive activation rate is 16.1%. The Growth features are estimated to increase this to 20.4%, which is a 26.7% increase over the baseline.

I wonder how much things have changed in the past 4 years!

Wow! What a great reference point...thank you for finding and sharing, @mpopov.

Per what @MNeisler and I talked about offline on 20 March 2024, we're going to revise the scope of this task to be a more generic exploration of how we might use data to identify policies/guidelines newcomers commonly break/defy.

"1." and "2." sum into the Prioritization decision articulated above.

In T346983#9244369, @ppelberg wrote:

Next step

• @ppelberg to file ticket or consulting with volunteers about which approach to move forward with

We decided NOT to do the above in favor of starting more immediately with an initial approach using the following approach:

Per conversation @MNeisler and I had offline today, we're going to proceed with defining "unreliable sources" for the purposes of establishing the baseline this ticket is asking for as: The proportion edits that A) add new content [i], B) in the main namespace, C) include a reference [ii], and D) are reverted within 48 hours.

Per what @ovasileva and I talked about offline, the Editing and Web Teams consider this ticket a blocker for deploying "night mode" to everyone by default.

In T342930#9631364, @MNeisler wrote:

I've completed an initial analysis of the Edit Check AB test results including review of the KPI, Curiosity #1, and Guardrails 1-3. Results are summarized in this slide deck which was presented to the team on 12 March 2024.

Below are the current proposed next steps

The proposed next steps you identified align with the next steps the presentation you made on 12 March 2024 brought to mind for me...thank you for documenting these and all of the work that inspired them, @MNeisler

In T359489#9612204, @Sdkb wrote:

My initial thought here is that generating permalinks is more something that experienced editors do than newcomers, so it's not the end of the world if the feature isn't all that discoverable. It's the sort of thing that, if someone sticks around, they'll eventually figure it out by the time they need to use it.

Thank you for adding this perspective, @Sdkb. [i]

In T359489#9612122, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

In T359489#9609374, @Esanders wrote:

Will we prioritize making permalinks more discoverable at this time?

How would we make them more discoverable?

For example by using a more noticeable (although at the same time more annoying) link color, or putting it in a menu (T338534).

What you described is precisely what I had in mind...thank you for adding this context, @Tacsipacsi.

Assigning this over to @MNeisler for review.

In T359107#9603584, @Snaevar wrote:

Sometimes new editors copy articles from one title to another because they do not know how Special:MovePage works, and are in fact fully unaware of it's existence. It is an false positive for an copy-paste copyvio check.

Great spot, @Snaevar! I hadn't considered this case...

In T359107#9603044, @Sdkb wrote:

Having the editor automatically check whether text being added already appears elsewhere on the internet (i.e. like Earwig's detector does) and warn editors about copyright if so would be an excellent feature.

Nice...it's helpful to know a feature of this sort resonates in concept, @Sdkb !

Per what the Editing Team discussed offline during today's planning meeting, at a minimum, we'll need instrumentation to help us answer questions like:
1. How many checks were presented/activated during any given edit session?
2. Of this checks that were activated within a given edit session, to what extent – if any – did the person engage with each check?

In T300942#9597055, @Pikne wrote:

New/careless users often copy and paste, or alter the source material only a little, and hence violate copyrights (no matter whether they cite sources or not).

Thank you for bringing this all together, @MNeisler! A couple of questions for you in response...

Related, organizing and presenting knowledge by subject location: https://wikimap.wiki/?base=map&lat=1963828.3951&lon=651246.8851&showAll=true&wiki=enwiki&zoom=3

An example of someone citing Wikipedia as a source at sw.wiki; see reference to en:LLM.

In T346982#9364769, @MNeisler wrote:

• New content references that included references to other articles on wikipedia were also frequently reverted. 21% of 207 new content edits that included a reference to another wikipedia articles were reverted.
• Reverted edits appear far more likely to link to domains with fewer occurrences elsewhere on the wiki (at the time of the externallinks snapshot). This was true overall and by wiki.

In T346982#9364769, @MNeisler wrote:

I've finished retrieving all citation data that accompanied new content edits made in the last 90 days. Per @Isaac's suggestion, I modified the notebook and resulting dataset to retain full URLs in addition to the URL. This helped provide more specific and accurate source type details for urls where a Citoid response was available.

Thank you for pulling this together, @MNeisler. A couple of responses in-line below.

We understand the set of factors causing the transient state you're experiencing @Danbloch (thank you for reporting this, btw!) as the following:

1. Diff preferences are based on accounts. Meaning, a preference set on desktop will be reflected on mobile and vice versa
2. There is [currently] no visual and wikitext switcher shown at narrow screen widths