//🌱In the forest that is Phabricator, this ticket is very much a seedling on the forest floor. Read: this task is a gathering place/work in progress.//
This parent task is intended to help gather and advance the thinking around how the visual editor might be enhanced to help people learn the social conventions (read: [policies and guidelines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines)) and exercise the judgement necessary to become productive and constructive Wikipedia editors.
Visual editor's growing popularity among people new to editing Wikipedia [i] suggests it has been reasonably successful at helping people to learn the technical skills [ii] necessary to edit Wikipedia.
Trouble is, the edits these new people make often break/defy [Wikipedia policies and guidelines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines).
This task is about exploring how the visual editor could be augmented/enhanced to help people learn these [policies and guidelines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines) and exercise the judgement necessary to become productive and constructive Wikipedia editors.
=== Potential impact
**New and Junior Contributors**
Working on talking pages has led us to notice that for many newcomers, the earliest human interactions they have on-wiki centers around something they did wrong, like not contributing in the Wikipedia Way [iii] [iv][v][vi].
We wonder how newcomers perceive these interactions and further, whether newcomers having a positive first interaction with another Wikipedia editor could increase the likelihood that they continue editing. [vii]
We wonder whether adding more "productive friction" to publishing flows could free Senior Contributors up to do more high-value work by:
- Reducing the amount of work they need to do reverting lower quality edits by increasing the quality of edits
- Reducing the amount of work they need to do blocking bad faith/vandalistic editors by lowering the likelihood these actors are able to complete/publish the changes that cause them to be blocked
- Reducing the amount of work and time they spend writing on new users' talk pages to alert them of policies and/or guidelines they've [likely] unknowingly broken
=== Use cases
|Theme|Related policy/guideline/cultural value|Tickets|Links
|Citations and reliable sources|[WP:VERIFY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), [WP:RELIABLE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), [WP:CS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)| T276857, T166296|
|Readability |[WP:MOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch), [linking to disambiguation pages](https://w.wiki/3ZuJ)|T91338, T135321, T95500|
|Tone/language on talk pages (slurs, [weasel words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions), etc.)|[WP:ETIQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette), [WP:NPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)| |
//More in T284465.//
=== Naming ideas
- Intelligent edits / Edit intelligence
-- //I'm attracted to the idea of framing this as infusing the collective intelligence of the wikis into the editing interfaces.//
- Edit assistance
- Assisted edits
- Augmented edits
- Impact of turning off IP editing at pt.wiki.
-- Slides: [Impact of turning off IP editing on ptwiki](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EWWHBN6dtc_aGWBKuy0ayIVpX2lRl_Wguc4PiwT6xHk/edit#slide=id.gc5206979fe_0_8)
-- Analysis: https://analytics.wikimedia.org/published/notebooks/AHT/ptwiki_dashboard.html
- Study of policies at various Wikipedias: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Research_-_Wikipedia
- [Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failure](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05345)
- [Wikipedian Self-Governance in Action: Motivating the Policy Lens](https://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICWSM/2008/ICWSM08-011.pdf)
- [Twitter Prompts Findings](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/tweeting-with-consideration.html)
-- "If prompted, 34% of people revised their initial reply or decided to not send their reply at all."
-- "After being prompted once, people composed, on average, 11% fewer offensive replies in the future."
-- "If prompted, people were less likely to receive offensive and harmful replies back."
- [Unreliable Guidelines: Reliable Sources and Marginalized Communities in French, English and Spanish Wikipedias](https://artandfeminism.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Unrealiable-Guidelines_Final.pdf)
-- "A new editor wrote in an email that they perceived Wikipedia’s reliable source guidelines to have exclusionary features."
-- "...community consensus is a foundational pillar of the Wikimedia movement. We learned trainers see this process as privileging those who participated first in the development of the encyclopedia’s editorial back channels. As well, the participants in our community conversations were uncomfortable with the presumption that agreement is communicated through silence, which privileges those who have the time and feel comfortable speaking up and participating in editorial conversations."
-- "In English, contributors from English-speaking countries in Africa said their contributions often faced scrutiny. One organizer from an unnamed African country who participated in our session said when they hosted events, contributions were deleted en-mass for lacking reliability. This was demoralizing for the participants and required extra work by the trainers to stand up for their publications and citations, said one participant...To avoid new editors experiencing these disappointing responses, other trainers in English Wikipedia explained they would review sources before new editors begin editing."
-- "...the quantity of material that a trainer is required to parse in relation to reliable source guidelines is immense. As one participant said:"
--- "This bushy structure makes the guidelines pages unreadable. Who has the time and the meticulousness to read it completely without being lost to a certain point? It took me a decade to go through it [in French] and I must admit I’m not done yet!"
- Ideas for where/how we might introduce this feedback/interaction: T95500#6873217
//Related on-wiki tools//
- @ValeJappo's [BOTutor0](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ValeJappo/BOTutor0)
//Related third-party tools//
=== Open questions
- [ ] 1. **Responsibility**: How much responsibility should the software lead people to think they have for "correcting" the issues within the content they're editing?
- [ ] 2. **Authority**: How might this capability shift editors' perception of who is the authority on what's "best"? Might this tool cause people to listen the software more than they do fellow editors?
- [ ] 3. **Audibility**: How will this tool adapt/cope with the fact that policies and guidelines are constantly evolving?
- [ ] 4. **Reverts**: Might this capability be impactful for people whose edits have been reverted?
Note: I've added the above to T265163's newly-created `===Open questions` section.
ii. Where "technical skills" could mean: adding text, formatting text, adding links, adding citations, publishing edits, etc.
vii. Perhaps the Research Team's "Thanks" research might be instructive here for it explore how positive interactions/sentiment affect editing behavior: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_thanks