Change Details

This task involves the work with converging on what people will experience when they attempt to reference a source that a project has determined to be unreliable while editing using the visual editor. //A parallel effort for the 2010 wikitext editor is is happening in T347435.// Where "unreliable" in the scope of this ticket refers to a source that exists on a given project's `Special:BlockedExternalDomains` page. //Note: we can see a future where Edit Checks presents people with feedback about source beyond those that projects block from being published. Tho, this work will happen in T348060 once, at a minimum, T346849 is resolved. [i]// === Story **As a person** who is unaware of Wikipedia's [reliability policy](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4663914) and who is attempting to reference a source that the project I'm editing has deemed to be unreliable //and// unfit for publishing on-wiki, **I'd value** being made aware of this information and presented with an easy and timely way to act on it, so that I can publish the change(s) I'm making and increase the likelihood that they remain on the wiki. === User experience //This section will eventually contain the proposed user experience for, what we're calling, the Reference Reliability Edit Check.// === Learning objectives This ticket is scoped with the goal of helping us to arrive at initial answers to the following questions: # When and how is the feedback shown initially? # What call(s) to action is presented along with that feedback? # When you engage with the call to action, what does the workflow look like? === Open questions - [ ] 1. What - if anything – will we need to do to ensure the UX this ticket will introduce does, at a minimum, not conflict with what people will see when they attempt to an invalid domain. //E.g. `google.con`// -- {F41411422} --- i. Please see T346849#9217888 for more context about how/why the Editing Team has arrived at this point of view.

This task involves the work with converging on what people will experience when they attempt to reference a source that a project has determined to be unreliable while editing using the visual editor. //A parallel effort for the 2010 wikitext editor is is happening in T347435.// Where "unreliable" in the scope of this ticket refers to a source that exists on a given project's `Special:BlockedExternalDomains` page. //Note: we can see a future where Edit Checks presents people with feedback about source beyond those that projects block from being published. Tho, this work will happen in T348060 once, at a minimum, T346849 is resolved. [i]// === Story **As a person** who is unaware of Wikipedia's [reliability policy](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4663914) and who is attempting to reference a source that the project I'm editing has deemed to be unreliable //and// unfit for publishing on-wiki, **I'd value** being made aware of this information and presented with an easy and timely way to act on it, so that I can publish the change(s) I'm making and increase the likelihood that they remain on the wiki. === User experience //This section will eventually contain the proposed user experience for, what we're calling, the Reference Reliability Edit Check.// === Learning objectives This ticket is scoped with the goal of helping us to arrive at initial answers to the following questions: # When and how is the feedback shown initially? # What call(s) to action is presented along with that feedback? # When you engage with the call to action, what does the workflow look like? === Open questions - [ ] 1. What - if anything – will we need to do to ensure the UX this ticket will introduce does, at a minimum, not conflict with what people will see when they attempt to an invalid domain. //E.g. `google.con`// -- {F41411422} - [ ] 2. What default message will people see within Citoid when they attempt to add a source that is listed on `MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist` and/or `MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json`? --- i. Please see T346849#9217888 for more context about how/why the Editing Team has arrived at this point of view.

This task involves the work with converging on what people will experience when they attempt to reference a source that a project has determined to be unreliable while editing using the visual editor. //A parallel effort for the 2010 wikitext editor is is happening in T347435.// Where "unreliable" in the scope of this ticket refers to a source that exists on a given project's `Special:BlockedExternalDomains` page. //Note: we can see a future where Edit Checks presents people with feedback about source beyond those that projects block from being published. Tho, this work will happen in T348060 once, at a minimum, T346849 is resolved. [i]// === Story **As a person** who is unaware of Wikipedia's [reliability policy](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4663914) and who is attempting to reference a source that the project I'm editing has deemed to be unreliable //and// unfit for publishing on-wiki, **I'd value** being made aware of this information and presented with an easy and timely way to act on it, so that I can publish the change(s) I'm making and increase the likelihood that they remain on the wiki. === User experience //This section will eventually contain the proposed user experience for, what we're calling, the Reference Reliability Edit Check.// === Learning objectives This ticket is scoped with the goal of helping us to arrive at initial answers to the following questions: # When and how is the feedback shown initially? # What call(s) to action is presented along with that feedback? # When you engage with the call to action, what does the workflow look like? === Open questions - [ ] 1. What - if anything – will we need to do to ensure the UX this ticket will introduce does, at a minimum, not conflict with what people will see when they attempt to an invalid domain. //E.g. `google.con`// -- {F41411422} - [ ] 2. What default message will people see within Citoid when they attempt to add a source that is listed on `MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist` and/or `MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json`? --- i. Please see T346849#9217888 for more context about how/why the Editing Team has arrived at this point of view.