Change Details

This task involves the work of reconsidering what happens when people elect to decline taking action on a Peacock Check that is presented to them. The need for this exploration emerged during a 19 March Editing Team discussion wherein we came to align on the following disconnect: 1. Publishing an edit that introduces text written in – what experienced volunteers are likely to consider – a non-neutral tone is relatively disruptive 2. Dismissing a Peacock Check, at present, is relatively lightweight/seamless The disconnect between "1." and "2.", we think, will send people encountering Peacock Check a conflicting message. === Decision(s) to be made - [ ] What - if any – modifications will we make to the Peacock Check's "decline path" to ensure it reinforces the importance of considering tone when adding new content to Wikipedia and the potential impact of //not// doing so? - [ ] How/if might we use the signal the decline path ideally captures/elicits could be useful for the model retraining the ML Team is planning in T393103 - [x] How – if at all – will we pass on the responses volunteers offer to the model/ML Team? -- TBD; see T393103. === Approaches //Ideas needed...// - **Approach #1**: prompt people to indicate //why// they've declined to revise the tone of what they've writen? NOTE: any approach needs to scale to a world where people are seeing ≥3 Checks/edit session. === Done - [ ] Potential "Approaches" are documented - [ ] An "Approach" is chosen and implemented

This task involves the work of reconsidering what happens when people elect to decline taking action on a Peacock Check that is presented to them. The need for this exploration emerged during a 19 March Editing Team discussion wherein we came to align on the following disconnect: 1. Publishing an edit that introduces text written in – what experienced volunteers are likely to consider – a non-neutral tone is relatively disruptive 2. Dismissing a Peacock Check, at present, is relatively lightweight/seamless The disconnect between "1." and "2.", we think, will send people encountering Peacock Check a conflicting message. === Stories - As a newcomer/Junior Contributor who has explicitly chosen to forego revising the tone of what they've written, I would like to know what information/content I can offer to the experienced volunteers who are likely to review/patrol this soon-to-be published edit, so that I can increase the likelihood that the contribution I consider to be useful and worthwhile remains on the wiki. - As an experienced volunteer who is reviewing an edit in which someone has a) added new text written in a tone considered to be non-neutral and b) decided NOT to revise the tone of said text, I would like to know why this person made this decision so that I can decide what – if any – action (e.g. revert the edit, post a message on the person who made the edit's talk page, etc.) to take in response === Decision(s) to be made - [ ] What - if any – modifications will we make to the Peacock Check's "decline path" to ensure it reinforces the importance of considering tone when adding new content to Wikipedia and the potential impact of //not// doing so? - [ ] How/if might we use the signal the decline path ideally captures/elicits could be useful for the model retraining the ML Team is planning in T393103 - [x] How – if at all – will we pass on the responses volunteers offer to the model/ML Team? -- TBD; see T393103. === Approaches //Ideas needed...// - **Approach #1**: prompt people to indicate //why// they've declined to revise the tone of what they've writen? NOTE: any approach needs to scale to a world where people are seeing ≥3 Checks/edit session. === Done - [ ] Potential "Approaches" are documented - [ ] An "Approach" is chosen and implemented

This task involves the work of reconsidering what happens when people elect to decline taking action on a Peacock Check that is presented to them. The need for this exploration emerged during a 19 March Editing Team discussion wherein we came to align on the following disconnect: 1. Publishing an edit that introduces text written in – what experienced volunteers are likely to consider – a non-neutral tone is relatively disruptive 2. Dismissing a Peacock Check, at present, is relatively lightweight/seamless The disconnect between "1." and "2.", we think, will send people encountering Peacock Check a conflicting message. === Stories - As a newcomer/Junior Contributor who has explicitly chosen to forego revising the tone of what they've written, I would like to know what information/content I can offer to the experienced volunteers who are likely to review/patrol this soon-to-be published edit, so that I can increase the likelihood that the contribution I consider to be useful and worthwhile remains on the wiki. - As an experienced volunteer who is reviewing an edit in which someone has a) added new text written in a tone considered to be non-neutral and b) decided NOT to revise the tone of said text, I would like to know why this person made this decision so that I can decide what – if any – action (e.g. revert the edit, post a message on the person who made the edit's talk page, etc.) to take in response === Decision(s) to be made - [ ] What - if any – modifications will we make to the Peacock Check's "decline path" to ensure it reinforces the importance of considering tone when adding new content to Wikipedia and the potential impact of //not// doing so? - [ ] How/if might we use the signal the decline path ideally captures/elicits could be useful for the model retraining the ML Team is planning in T393103 - [x] How – if at all – will we pass on the responses volunteers offer to the model/ML Team? -- TBD; see T393103. === Approaches //Ideas needed...// - **Approach #1**: prompt people to indicate //why// they've declined to revise the tone of what they've writen? NOTE: any approach needs to scale to a world where people are seeing ≥3 Checks/edit session. === Done - [ ] Potential "Approaches" are documented - [ ] An "Approach" is chosen and implemented