Change Details

This task involves the work with inviting Senior Contributors to review the first "Edit Check" the Editing Team is proposing to introduce. === Learning Objectives 1. Learn how – if at all – Senior Contributors anticipate the proposed mobile UX flow interfering with how they have come to expect to contribute to Wikipedia 2. Learn in what – if any – ways Senior Contributors think the proposed mobile UX flow could be adjusted/augmented to increase the ease and efficacy with which they can review edits 3. Learn which parts – if any – of the feedback system Edit Check is proposing that Senior Contributors would value being able to configure on a per-project basis === Decisions to be Made - [ ] What – if any – aspects of the current approach need to be revised or otherwise reconsidered //before// the Editing Team invests further time into advancing what we've currently drafted === Consultation Plan //This section will contain information about **who** we will reach out and **how** we will reach out to them.// === Prompts //This section contains a **potential** list of prompts we'll share with volunteers to inspire the feedback we'll be inviting them to share.// - [ ] What additional information/context might you find helpful in assessing the quality of an edit and the intentions of the person making it so that you can decide how best to respond to it/them? - [ ] What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you feel compelled to assist with (e.g. write a personalized message on their talk page, add a reference to a content addition that lacked one)? - [ ] What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you do //not// feel compelled to assist with (e.g. revert the edits they made, post a templated warning message on their talk page) - [ ] What aspects of the initial reference check experience can you imagine projects wanting to configure? In what ways do you think we ought to configure them //to start//? - [ ] Thinking ahead, what other kinds of checks can you imagine being useful/valuable? //Knowing this will help us – the Editing Team and volunteers – develop a clear, aspirational, and feasible idea that we can collaborate on.// === Done //In progress// - [ ] Document issues/opportunities that are beyond the scope of the Edit Check project (e.g. in T325854)

This task involves the work with inviting Senior Contributors to review the first "Edit Check" the Editing Team is proposing to introduce. === Learning Objectives 1. Learn how – if at all – Senior Contributors anticipate the proposed mobile UX flow interfering with how they have come to expect to contribute to Wikipedia 2. Learn in what – if any – ways Senior Contributors think the proposed mobile UX flow could be adjusted/augmented to increase the ease and efficacy with which they can review edits 3. Learn which parts – if any – of the feedback system Edit Check is proposing that Senior Contributors would value being able to configure on a per-project basis === Decisions to be Made - [ ] What – if any – aspects of the current approach need to be revised or otherwise reconsidered //before// the Editing Team invests further time into advancing what we've currently drafted === Consultation Plan //This section will contain information about **who** we will reach out and **how** we will reach out to them.// === Prompts //This section contains a **potential** list of prompts we'll share with volunteers to inspire the feedback we'll be inviting them to share.// |Prompt|Description|Relevant tickets |1.|What additional information/context might you find helpful in assessing the quality of an edit and the intentions of the person making it so that you can decide how best to respond to it/them?| |2.|What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you feel compelled to assist with (e.g. write a personalized message on their talk page, add a reference to a content addition that lacked one)? | |3.|What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you do //not// feel compelled to assist with (e.g. revert the edits they made, post a templated warning message on their talk page)| |4.| What aspects of the initial reference check experience can you imagine projects wanting to configure? In what ways do you think we ought to configure them //to start//?| T325711 |5.|Thinking ahead, what other kinds of checks can you imagine being useful/valuable? //Knowing this will help us – the Editing Team and volunteers – develop a clear, aspirational, and feasible idea that we can collaborate on.//| T325011 |6.| What rules ought to determine whether a change someone is making warrants the reference check being triggered?| T324730 === Done //In progress// - [ ] Document issues/opportunities that are beyond the scope of the Edit Check project (e.g. in T325854)

This task involves the work with inviting Senior Contributors to review the first "Edit Check" the Editing Team is proposing to introduce. === Learning Objectives 1. Learn how – if at all – Senior Contributors anticipate the proposed mobile UX flow interfering with how they have come to expect to contribute to Wikipedia 2. Learn in what – if any – ways Senior Contributors think the proposed mobile UX flow could be adjusted/augmented to increase the ease and efficacy with which they can review edits 3. Learn which parts – if any – of the feedback system Edit Check is proposing that Senior Contributors would value being able to configure on a per-project basis === Decisions to be Made - [ ] What – if any – aspects of the current approach need to be revised or otherwise reconsidered //before// the Editing Team invests further time into advancing what we've currently drafted === Consultation Plan //This section will contain information about **who** we will reach out and **how** we will reach out to them.// === Prompts //This section contains a **potential** list of prompts we'll share with volunteers to inspire the feedback we'll be inviting them to share.// - [ ] What additional information/context might you find helpful in assessing the quality of an edit and the intentions of the person making it so that you can decide how best to respond to it/them?|Prompt|Description|Relevant tickets - [ ] What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you feel compelled to assist with (e.g. write a personalized message on their talk page, add a reference to a content addition that lacked one)?|1.|What additional information/context might you find helpful in assessing the quality of an edit and the intentions of the person making it so that you can decide how best to respond to it/them?| - [ ] |2.|What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you feel compelled to assist with (e.g. write a personalized message on their talk page, add a reference to a content addition that lacked one)? | |3.|What patterns have you noticed in the newcomers/edits you do //not// feel compelled to assist with (e.g. revert the edits they made, post a templated warning message on their talk page)| |4.| What aspects of the initial reference check experience can you imagine projects wanting to configure? post a templated warning message onIn what ways do you think we ought to configure their talk page)m //to start//?| T325711 - [ ] What aspects of the initial reference check experience can you imagine projects wanting to configure?|5.|Thinking ahead, what other kinds of checks can you imagine being useful/valuable? //Knowing this will help us – the Editing Team and volunteers – develop a clear, aspirational, In what ways do you thinkand feasible idea that we ought to configure them //to start//?can collaborate on.//| T325011 - [ ] Thinking ahead, what other kinds of checks can you imagine being useful/valuable? //Knowing this will help us – the Editing Team and volunteers – develop a clear, aspirational, and feasible idea that we can collaborate on.//|6.| What rules ought to determine whether a change someone is making warrants the reference check being triggered?| T324730 === Done //In progress// - [ ] Document issues/opportunities that are beyond the scope of the Edit Check project (e.g. in T325854)