The initial reference check user experience we've been defining in T325711 includes an option for people to //forego// adding a reference to the content they are attempting to add:
|Dismiss adding a citation|Edit summary screen
|---|---
|{F36824591}| //Per the idea @nayoub raised on 8 March, we're thinking people who decline to add a source be prompted to articulate why using the existing edit summary step/screen, pre-populated with helper text that is informed by the response the person provided in the "Dismiss adding a citation" dialog."//
|Source: [Figma](https://www.figma.com/file/t1MMZZiDjkqZMJwkjhyJNB/Editing%2FEdit-Check?node-id=815%3A33166&t=5JShMcc2XOcn0Hzw-0)|
This task involves the work with defining what happens in this case? What actions/choices will we present to people in this moment? {F37149656}
This task involves the work with finalizing the responses people will be presented within the moment immediately after they decline to add a reference.
NOTE: the work involved with deciding //if// and //how// the reason people who decline to add a reference select is shared publicly is happening in T338909T341533.
=== Stories
- As a newcomer/Junior Contributor who has chosen to forego adding a reference to the content they are planning to publish to Wikipedia, I would like to know what information/content I can offer to the experience volunteers who are likely to review/patrol this soon-to-be published edit, so that I can increase the likelihood that the contribution I consider to be useful and worthwhile remains on the wiki.
- As an experienced volunteer who is reviewing an edit in which someone has **a)** added new content //and// **b)** decided NOT to verify that new content with a reference, I would like to know why this person made this decision so that I can decide what – if any – action (e.g. revert the edit, post a message on the person who made the edit's talk page, etc.) to take in response
=== Requirements
**In-edit decline responses**
- People who decide not to add a reference when Edit Check prompts them to consider doing so ought to see a dialog that asks them to articulate "why" they've made this decisions. This dialog ought to contain the following choices for people to select from:
-- CHOICE #1 TBD
-- CHOICE #2 TBD
-- //A choices that signals that they believe the prompt appeared in error, per T324735#8847900//
-- `Other`
- People need to be made aware that the response they give will be public for other people to see and how other editors are likely to use the response people provide
**Showing decline response post-edit**
- The response people provide by way of the view this ticket is asking us to introduce should also be automatically "passed" to the edit summary such thatwill cause an edit tag to be appended to said edit. This edit tag should:
-- Be **visible** in history pages by default. //Read: tag should not be hidden.//
-- Correspond to the specific decline response someone provided
-- Be linked to [mw:Edit check/Tags](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check/Tags) so that people who are interested can learn more about what the tag they're encountering means
- The edit tags should be named as follows:
-- When someone arrives at the edit summary dialog, the textfield should already be pre-populated with text that corresponds with the "decline reason" they selected. //See T341533#9035540 for context.|Decline response|Edit tag name|
|---|---
| //TBD//| //TBD//
| //TBD//| //TBD//
| //TBD//|//TBD//
| //TBD//| //TBD//
=== Open questions
- [ ] 1. What additional information/context might Senior Contributors find helpful in determining what action to take in response to someone who published an edit that they explicitly //declined// to accompany with a reference?
- [ ] 2. ~~How will we log when people engage with this view in some way (read: when they take an action to //explicitly// acknowledge that they've decided not to include a reference)? //This information will affect how we go about evaluating the impact of Edit Check. Reason: we are currently considering someone explicitly declining to add a reference and also explaining why as a positive outcome.//~~
-- We'll address this question in T341533
- [ ] 3. To what extent will the decline responses this ticket introduces be configurable on-wiki, on a per project basis? [i]
== Done
- [ ] Answers to all open questions are documented
- [ ] Requirements are implemented
---
=== Loose
- Per what @Whatamidoing-WMF raised in the `Needs Discussion` meeting the Editing Team convened on 8 February, we came to agree that the moment/experience this task is asking us to design ought to feel necessary and important. //Said another way: ideally, people would not experience this moment like they do other standard feedback forms that sometimes accompany new features.//
=== References
- @Sdkb: T327330#8566409
- {T329593}
- @suffusion_of_yellow: //"First, on every popup, have a prominent "report error" button. Not some ad hoc system like we have with edit filters, but built right in to the extension. When they click that, it's clearly disclosed that now the contents of the edit form will be made public (and also CC-BY-SA, you are editing logged out, blah blah blah). They can click "cancel" if there's a something private or copyrighted."// | [source](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_check#c-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20230523193900-Whatamidoing_(WMF)-20230523185600)
---
i. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edit_check#c-Joe_Roe-20230630144700-Feedback:_Joe_Roe