Change Details

This task involves the work of defining an //initial// workflow for how/where volunteers and staff can log instances when they think Edit Check is appear when it shouldn't be. === Story As an **experienced volunteer** who is motivated to ensure the reference Edit Check is having a net positive impact on a particular Wikipedia, I'd like an easy way to mark/report an edit wherein I think Edit Check appeared when it should **not** have //so that// I can propose changes to how Edit Check is configured to minimize the likelihood that it appears when it doesn't make sense to appear. === Requirements **Reporting workflow** //This sub-section describes what needs to be in place for volunteers to report an edit they think the reference edit check should **not** have been shown within.// # All edits the reference edit check is activated within are accompanied by an edit tag that signals as much. //This work happened in T342462.// # When people tap/click the edit tag "1." describes, they ought to be taken to a !!yet-to-be defined wiki page!! # On that page, there ought to be a clear call to action that invites people to report a false positive # Upon tapping the call to action "3." describes, people ought to prompted to share the information documented in the "Report requirements" section below # Once a false positive is reported, it should be easy for other people to comment on a particular report so that they can do things //like// a) agree/disagree on whether this is in fact a false positive, b) decide on what – if any – adjustments should be made to lower the likelihood that a false positive of this particular type happens again in the future, and c) track the status of the change volunteers might've converged on in "b)" **Report requirements** //This sub-section contains the information that will need to accompany each report.// - **Diff**: a link to the diff the person is reporting that the reference edit check should //not// have been shown within - **Username**: a link to the user page of the person reporting the false positive - **Rationale**: the reason why someone thinks an edit check should //not// have been shown within this particular edit - **Reporting time**: the time a false positive report was "filed" - **Check shown**: confirmation about which edit check was shown in the edit in question. //Note: at present, there's only one check.// === Open questions - [ ] 1. How – if at all – will we implement this initial approach in ways that will make it easier to reuse/extend for future checks? === Approaches **Approach #1:** Invite false positive reports via a wiki page linked from the `editcheck-references-activated` tag T342462 introduced **Approach #2:** Enable people to report false positives using a dedicated workflow that does not require them to leave the context where they encountered the "problematic" edit **Approach #3:** TBD --- === References - [en:Edit filter/False positives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives)

This task involves the work of defining an //initial// workflow for how/where volunteers and staff can log instances when they think Edit Check is appear when it shouldn't be. === Story As someoneAs an **experienced volunteer** who is motivated to ensure the reference Edit Check is having a net positive impact on a particular Wikipedia, I'd like an easy way to mark/report an edit wherein I think Edit Check appeared when it should **not** have //so that// I can propose changes to how Edit Check is configured to minimize the likelihood that it appears when it doesn't make sense to appear. === Requirements **Reporting workflow** //This sub-section describes what needs to be in place for volunteers to report an edit they think the reference edit check should **not** have been shown within.// # All edits the reference edit check is activated within are accompanied by an edit tag that signals as much. //This work happened in T342462.// # When people tap/click the edit tag "1." describes, they ought to be taken to a !!yet-to-be defined wiki page!! # On that page, there ought to be a clear call to action that invites people to report a false positive # Upon tapping the call to action "3." describes, people ought to prompted to share the information documented in the "Report requirements" section below # Once a false positive is reported, it should be easy for other people to comment on a particular report so that they can do things //like// a) agree/disagree on whether this is in fact a false positive, b) decide on what – if any – adjustments should be made to lower the likelihood that a false positive of this particular type happens again in the future, and c) track the status of the change volunteers might've converged on in "b)" **Report requirements** //This sub-section contains the information that will need to accompany each report.// - **Diff**: a link to the diff the person is reporting that the reference edit check should //not// have been shown within - **Username**: a link to the user page of the person reporting the false positive - **Rationale**: the reason why someone thinks an edit check should //not// have been shown within this particular edit - **Reporting time**: the time a false positive report was "filed" - **Check shown**: confirmation about which edit check was shown in the edit in question. //Note: at present, there's only one check.// === Open questions - [ ] 1. How – if at all – will we implement this initial approach in ways that will make it easier to reuse/extend for future checks? === Approaches **Approach #1:** Invite false positive reports via a wiki page linked from the `editcheck-references-activated` tag T342462 introduced **Approach #2:** Enable people to report false positives using a dedicated workflow that does not require them to leave the context where they encountered the "problematic" edit **Approach #3:** TBD --- === References - [en:Edit filter/False positives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives)