For reference: T342462
Description
Description
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T265163 Create a system to encode best practices into editing experiences | |||
| Open | None | T276857 [Check] Offer volunteers feedback about the reliability of the source they are attempting to add | |||
| Open | None | T351779 [MILESTONE] Offer Reference Reliability Check at partner wikis | |||
| Open | None | T360555 Make volunteers aware of Reference Reliability deployment | |||
| Open | None | T350622 Introduce a new tag to identify edits the Reference Reliability check is shown within |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Sort of iffy to do for statistics, since the only edits we can meaningfully tag are "someone was shown this, then fixed it" -- someone who bounces entirely just won't make an edit.
Comment Actions
Special:Log/abusefilterblockeddomainhit lists all attempts to add a blocked by URL to a wiki. Peter and I discussed this yesterday and agreed that a new tag might not be needed because of the log.
Plus we can have good faith users who add a blocked domain while editing, without knowing about the low quality of the source. Tagging their edits could make them considered unreliable users or spammers, while they just learn something and improve their edits.
Proposal: decline the task.
Comment Actions
Is anything logged if the user attempts to add a blocked URL and then gives up? I mentioned this at the offsite but I wonder if there could be a decrease in signals available to admins/functionaries to identify spammers if they're discouraged mid-edit. You could argue they then haven't done any harm, but it may lead to them attempting different tactics, without a corresponding signal that they attempted to add a spam URL. Might be worth checking with sockpuppet patrollers to see if they have any concerns about this if so.
Comment Actions
AFACT, it is when they hit "publish". The attempt is blocked and logged, even if not finished. To be confirmed.
I mentioned this at the offsite but I wonder if there could be a decrease in signals available to admins/functionaries to identify spammers if they're discouraged mid-edit. You could argue they then haven't done any harm, but it may lead to them attempting different tactics, without a corresponding signal that they attempted to add a spam URL. Might be worth checking with sockpuppet patrollers to see if they have any concerns about this if so.
Telling users that the link they'll use will be rejected won't prevent real spammers: they will add their link no matter what. As Edit Check isn't blocking any edit, we could tag it if the user pursues their plan even if they've been advised not to. We will broadcast a signal, but is it the right one?
Good faith users will be discouraged from using this link and will probably change their strategy. Some won't as they don't have a better link, or they want to test the system. We could tag their edit if they ignored the warning, but I don't think it is fair to treat them at the same level as spammers.
I'm more concerned by a possible misuse than the initial intent with this tag (knowing how many users drop their edit/change the citation); plus we already instrument it on our side, in an anonymous way.