User story: As an editor evaluating how to act on a suggested edit, I would value knowing more about how the content came to be in the article to inform how I act on the suggestion.
Specific info that I would value could include:
- The date of the addition (T433002)
- The relevant diff(s) of the edits
- The user who made the addition (particularly how experienced they are and whether they have any pattern of problematic editing relating to the problem the suggested edit is flagging)
Examples of how this could influence my actions include:
- Declining a suggestion that content was AI-written if I learn that it was added before the launch of ChatGPT
- Scrutinizing another passage in the article if I learn it was added in the same edit as a promotional passage flagged as having a non-neutral tone
- Leaving a message or warning on the user talk page of an editor who added a passage if I learn info about them that makes me think they could learn from such a message
- Choosing to retain content a suggested edit suggests changing if the diff in which it was added contains a summary offering a compelling explanation for it
Approach: Have the suggestion provide contextual information/metadata about the content it applies to, perhaps in the form of link(s) to diff(s).