🧪 Experiment

We believe that having a better understanding of how logs work on the editor side could contribute to showing mostly relevant changes in the RecentChanges

To prove it we will do a series of activities, AKA the research protocol

Note from Vi: I will start mapping the assumptions for this one ;)

---

🧬 Sub-tasks

• Map assumptions
• Define experiment templates for prio assumptions
• Define Research protocol ⬅️🌱 in progress
• Identify audience (specific wiki? wikipedia editors in a given wiki? some patrollers?)
• Schedule activities
• Execute research
• Summary
• Transform some findings in key deliverables (make information digestible)
• Discuss findings with team

---

🔬 Covered topics

---

✅ Definition of "done"/"we know enough":

• Research has been done
• Learnings have been documented
• Pivot or persevere have been decided

---

⭐️ Summary

What did we learn?

---

➡️ Verdict:

What does it mean for our solution?

---

Added from another spike (please clean up ticket so that we can see scope and progress)

title: 🪁 [UX] Investigate if the logs are already clear enough for starting to launch
We believe that we have done enough impactful cleaning of the logs could contribute to showing mostly relevant changes in the RecentChanges

Note from Vi: this is a tricky one because there is no before and after to check with the same group of people (nor with a control group). While we could setup a prototype to see what people prefer when they compare the current log with a cleaner version, I can't imagine one scenario where editors would prefer the less clean one. Moreover how could editors know if it is clean enough or not? Eventually we are the ones who have to decide if it is enough or not. What could be the criteria of appreciation of a good log? <-- this is a question we could ask to editors :)