initial mockups for discussion:

Last edited date/time	Username of most recent editor	How many editors have edited it (minus bots)
How many people are watching the page	Number of open discussions	(control / no metadata)

@alexhollender_WMF these look great to us. We're comfortable moving forward with this appearance of the tested features on the other articles. See below for one minor suggestion, but feel free to disregard the suggestion and proceed as you think best.

suggestion

What do you think about changing the wording of "This article has been edited by [X] editors" to one of the following:

"This article has been worked on by [X] editors"
"This article has been contributed to by [X] editors"
"[X] editors have worked on this article"
"[X] editors have contributed to this article"

Essentially, we've (Design Strategy) heard some anecdotes over the last year or so that "edit" as a verb is sometimes confusing to readers, especially to readers in non-English contexts who see the translation of "edit" in their own languages and for whom "editing" things is considered to be a more formal process than it is in many English contexts. This recently came up in the eswiki reader interviews for Growth's Journey Transitions project, in which we found that "edit" often implies a degree of professionalism, formal training, a specific kind of job, etc. So some reader participants were confused by "editing," but intuitively understood the idea of "changing" or "writing something" in an article.

I realize that it's likely also a comms/branding issue, so there might not actually be any room to change here. I just wanted to flag and to say that we are comfortable with whatever you think is best here.

In T321861#8353220, @MRaishWMF wrote:

@alexhollender_WMF these look great to us. We're comfortable moving forward with this appearance of the tested features on the other articles. See below for one minor suggestion, but feel free to disregard the suggestion and proceed as you think best.

suggestion

What do you think about changing the wording of "This article has been edited by [X] editors" to one of the following:

"This article has been worked on by [X] editors"
"This article has been contributed to by [X] editors"
"[X] editors have worked on this article"
"[X] editors have contributed to this article"

Essentially, we've (Design Strategy) heard some anecdotes over the last year or so that "edit" as a verb is sometimes confusing to readers, especially to readers in non-English contexts who see the translation of "edit" in their own languages and for whom "editing" things is considered to be a more formal process than it is in many English contexts. This recently came up in the eswiki reader interviews for Growth's Journey Transitions project, in which we found that "edit" often implies a degree of professionalism, formal training, a specific kind of job, etc. So some reader participants were confused by "editing," but intuitively understood the idea of "changing" or "writing something" in an article.

I realize that it's likely also a comms/branding issue, so there might not actually be any room to change here. I just wanted to flag and to say that we are comfortable with whatever you think is best here.

I also wonder if maybe we can use "contributors" instead of "editors" as well. Maybe this is too vague, but maybe something like "This article has been written by [X] contributors"

@MRaishWMF @ovasileva I like the clarity of these two proposed options:

"This article has been written by [X] contributors/editors/people"	"[X] editors have contributed to this article"

The more I think about it the more nuance emerges. Maybe we pick one of these two for now, and we can further unpack this separate from this research project?

@alexhollender_WMF @ovasileva I'm a fan of option 2, "[X} editors have contributed to this article". It refers to "editors" as a type of user and explains what editors do.

In T321861#8366004, @MRaishWMF wrote:

@alexhollender_WMF @ovasileva I'm a fan of option 2, "[X} editors have contributed to this article". It refers to "editors" as a type of user and explains what editors do.

That sounds good to me

I think option #2 is also better. However, there isn't much control on how people will interpret the word "editors" or what they think the contributions are (i.e, Do they think that a "contribution" is just adding information or do they know that fixing a typo is also a contribution?). There is an open-ended question at the end of the survey that might prompt them to address that, but we can add something else to ask who they think "editors" is referring to.

As for other languages (i.e., Spanish), I do agree that the verb "editar" can have an additional/different meaning, but if that's what people see on the Spanish Wikipedia, then I think that's the word that should be used (unless there's a plan of changing all instances in which "editar" (or its variants "editores", "ediciones", etc.) appear on the website) for the research.

Another alternative could be to use something more generic, like "people": [X] people have contributed to this article.

@Laura.sti apologies for the delay, you can find all of the mockups here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1I-QQxAIYrIodVIxvyZtQSj9VvXF_kTYq?usp=share_link

would you like the mockups to have a browser around them, or not? for example:

with browser	without browser

Hi @alexhollender_WMF I am leaning toward no browser, mostly because it takes up more space. @Laura.sti is working on a pilot instrument with the mocks you provided, and it should be shared with the group soon.