Page MenuHomePhabricator

Introduce a change tag to identify edits that include a reference
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

The initial Edit Check the Editing Team is implementing is being designed to increase the likelihood that people will accompany the new content they are adding with a reference.

To evaluate the extent to which Edit Check is being successful in causing people to do the above, we will need a way to count, in aggregate/at-scale:

  1. The edits people make that involve them adding new content to the wikis (T333714) and
  2. Whether these edits do or do not include references (this ticket)

Stories

  • As a Data Scientist motivated to evaluate the impact of Edit Check, I need to be able to differentiate between edits in which people added references from edits in which people have not added references, so that I can evaluate Edit Check's impact on peoples' likelihood to accompany the new content they are adding with a reference
  • As a volunteer motivated to assess the impact the initial Edit Check is having on peoples' likelihood to include references when adding new content, I need to be differentiate between edits in which people added new content that are accompanied by a reference from edits in which people added new content that are NOT accompanied by a reference, so that I can decide whether it's worth proposing changes to the heuristic that will have been initially defined in T324730

Requirements

  1. A hidden change tag is appended/associated with all edits made using the visual editor to pages in the main namespace that involve an edit where people add a net new reference.
    • Where "net new reference" in this context means that the reference had not been previously included within the document they are editing.
  2. The hidden change tag "1." described is called editcheck-newreference

Open questions

  • 1. What – if anything – beyond the software detecting that someone added a new reference in the edit they are saving should cause this new edit tag to be added to said edit? E.g. does the edit *also* need to involve someone adding new content?
    • The tag this ticket introduces will be narrowly scoped to whether an edit involved someone adding a "net new" reference or not. A separate tag (T333714) will do the work of identifying edits that involve new content being added.
  • 2. Will the edit tag this task is "asking" for be applied regardless of the editing interface someone used to make said edit? See T325713#8718860.
    • Per what was discussed during the team meeting the Editing Team had on 7 June (see outcomes in T333714#8920087), to start, this tag will only included edits made with the visual editor. As a result, the tag this ticket introduces will be hidden as is specified in the Requirements section above.

Related Objects

Event Timeline

ppelberg renamed this task from Introduce a change tag that enables us to identify edits that include a reference to Introduce a change tag to identify edits that include a reference.Dec 22 2022, 12:46 AM

While Edit Check is (probably) limited to VisualEditor, I think this tag should be applied to all published edits.

By way of getting more baseline statistics sooner, I wonder if it could be applied retroactively (e.g., back to the beginning of this calendar year).

Per what @Isaac raised during today's offline conversation, we'll need to decide whether the tag this task will introduce will work across editing interfaces?

If "no," then we'll likely need to make this a hidden tag so as not to confuse experienced volunteers who might come to wonder why an edit made, with say, the source editor (where Edit Check will not be available) that includes a reference being added did not get tagged as such.

volunteers who might come to wonder why an edit made, with say, the source editor (where Edit Check will not be available) that includes a reference being added did not get tagged as such.

It would be better if all edits that include a reference being added were tagged as such, regardless of which editing interface is being used. Ideally, even a bot adding a ref should get this tag.

Change 935088 had a related patch set uploaded (by Esanders; author: Esanders):

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Add tag when reference added to the page

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/935088

Where "net new reference" in this context means that the reference had not been previously included within the document they are editing.

Note that the way this is currently implemented, we will not count adding a re-use of an existing reference as adding a new reference.

Change 935088 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Add tag when reference added to the page

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/935088

Change 935855 had a related patch set uploaded (by Esanders; author: Esanders):

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Revert "Revert "Add tag when reference added to the page""

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/935855

Can we please change the tag name from editcheck-references to editcheck-newreference?

Of course, if the deviation in the tag name was borne out of some constraint/new information, I'd value knowing...

Can we please change the tag name from editcheck-references to editcheck-newreference?

There's currently two tags:

  1. editcheck-references is the one we added a while ago that tags edits that would have the edit check interface appear if it was enabled.
  2. editcheck-newreference was added for this ticket, and tags edits that have a new (non-reused) reference added.

As such, if you think anything needs to be changed, we certainly can't make the exact change you requested. :D

Can we please change the tag name from editcheck-references to editcheck-newreference?

There's currently two tags:

  1. editcheck-references is the one we added a while ago that tags edits that would have the edit check interface appear if it was enabled.
  2. editcheck-newreference was added for this ticket, and tags edits that have a new (non-reused) reference added.

As such, if you think anything needs to be changed, we certainly can't make the exact change you requested. :D

Thank you for clarifying, @DLynch – what's currently in place aligns with what I was expecting.