| Trizek-WMF | |
| May 11 2021, 12:46 PM |
| F34570000: image.png | |
| Jul 30 2021, 2:59 AM |
This makes sense, but should be considered with the following in mind: reputable sources should be preferred but the initial goal is to see people thinking about sources. Asking newcomers to add a "reputable" source is the next step. Also, not everyone agrees on what is a "reputable source".
This task to discuss about this change.
Message: MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-help-panel-suggestededits-tips-vector-visualeditor-references-main-step2
Thanks for creating this task. At en-WP, our standards are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. I'm not too sure about other languages, but WP:RS has about 70 interlanguage links. For a beginner-friendly page, we could wikilink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4 over the word "reputable"; that page is only available in a few languages, though.
@Sdkb -- thanks for bringing up this idea. We talked about it on the team and we think that adding the word "reputable" wouldn't necessarily get across the point to the user, since what is "reputable" is a judgment call. Perhaps the better thing to do would be to keep the text short, and possible add a link to the bottom of that "quick tip" about reliable sources (screenshot of the page currently without link below). What do you think of that approach?
Can we add "Wikipedia is not a source for itself" as a step? As a volunteer, on the regular editing process (without Growth tools), I often see newcomers using Wikipedia as a foot note and claiming that the article has sources.
Impact: Potentially fewer newcomers using Wikipedia as a source
What happens if we don’t do this task: status quo
Level of effort: low (copy change)
Decision maker: @MMiller_WMF — can you confirm whether the copy should be updated?
@Trizek-WMF @Sdkb -- I've thought about this, and I don't think we should make a change here. I've been worrying about how wordy our features are, and whether users can actually consume so much info. There's so much we want to tell newcomers when they're first editing, and they have limited capacity to absorb. On this screen, for instance, if they get the idea that Facebook and Twitter are not sources, then that's a big win -- layering on the concepts of reputability and not using Wikipedia might be too much for this moment. Hopefully in future features, we figure out how to teach these more subtle ideas.