@Halfak We need your feedback here. All I remember from IRC was that you wanted "not null" validation, but don't know what your reasoning is.

Hey! Yes. So I believe that no one intentionally selects "null" in Wikilabels. The "nulls" we get are when information is unavailable (e.g. the revision was deleted). "null" doesn't carry the meaning we'd like when someone is filing an endorsement. Does it mean "I agree that we shouldn't be judging the 'damaging'ness of this edit."? Probably not. It seems to me that if we want to have an explicit "too difficult to say" option, we should add that to the schema rather than allowing for "null"s and assuming their meaning.

As discussed in last week's Scoring Staff meeting, the issue is that semantically, "null" doesn't mean "I don't know" – it means "there is no data." So we need a more explicit "I don't know" indicator.

From Etherpad:

Reasons why someone might not want to confidently submit damaging/goodfaith together:

• Don't want to judge "goodfaith"
• Don't know for sure
• OK with making a judgment but I want someone else to review it

Related Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Jade_summary_data_use_cases