User:Chzz/es

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 71

Support

 * 1) (nominator)
 * 2) (strong)  *Caveat: except user pages
 * 3) (strong)
 * 4) *Caveat: articles only
 * 5) (strong)
 * 6) (articles only)
 * 7) (articles only)
 * 8) (strong)
 * 9) (weak; dependent on the specific dialogue boxes used)
 * 10) (conditional - needs to be clearer)
 * 11) (articles)
 * 12) (strong)
 * 1) (strong)
 * 2) (articles only)
 * 3) (articles only)
 * 4) (strong)
 * 5) (weak; dependent on the specific dialogue boxes used)
 * 6) (conditional - needs to be clearer)
 * 7) (articles)
 * 8) (strong)
 * 1) (conditional - needs to be clearer)
 * 2) (articles)
 * 3) (strong)
 * 1) (articles)
 * 2) (strong)
 * 1) (articles)
 * 2) (strong)

(+ Happy Melon indicated support through discussion, but did not make a clear !vote) (+ Kayau didn't want to voice explicit support as 'nominator sort-of') (+ Yoenit refuted opposition but did not support {instead suggesting a trial})


 * Reasons given in support
 * Introduces new users to our 'culture' of explaining edits
 * Cut vandalism
 * Easier for new users to make edits which are not reverted (which can discourage them)
 * Insignificantly more difficult (net+)
 * Less BITE (no need to warn users for no edit sum)
 * Instant feedback (not a later talk message)
 * Helps admins check previous versions quicker when considering PROD/BLPPROD, which can be benefit new users as old version can be salvaged
 * Helps with NPP identification
 * Shows intent of an edit - avoiding possible revert, conflict, warnings, etc.

Oppose

 * 1) (renamed user, signed as User:MBelgrano)
 * 2) (weak)
 * 3) (signed as "Doc James")
 * 4) (strong)
 * 5) (weak)
 * 1) (renamed user, signed as User:MBelgrano)
 * 2) (weak)
 * 3) (signed as "Doc James")
 * 4) (strong)
 * 5) (weak)
 * 1) (weak)
 * 2) (signed as "Doc James")
 * 3) (strong)
 * 4) (weak)
 * 1) (signed as "Doc James")
 * 2) (strong)
 * 3) (weak)
 * 1) (strong)
 * 2) (weak)


 * Reasons given in opposition
 * Makes editing more difficult / complicated (unnecessarily)
 * If a vandal uses an edit summary, then we won't get the automatic "blanked page" or "replaced page with" summaries" -   could perhaps be resolved via edit filter
 * Not needed in other websites (e.g. Facebook)
 * They may not notice the box/prompt
 * Edit summaries are not mandated in policy
 * Edit summaries are not always useful
 * Implies they're trusted based on edit summary
 * No tangible benefits
 * We have tools to check - eg WikiBlame
 * Edit summaries can be misleading (and there is danger of wrongly assuming they are truthful)
 * users may use the summary to "discuss" instead of using talk pages
 * There is no problem to fix

Equazcion
 * Neutral

Other comments

 * A step towards mandatory registration?
 * Potential fix to software to still give reminder when editing a section (where edit sum is prefilled /* Section */ and the warning does not work)
 * The error message (when summary blank) is not clear and obvious - potentially they'd miss it. One idea is a 'pop up' reminder. See also MediaWiki messages.
 * Should be disabled for minor edits

Evaluation commentary notes from Chzz

 * Numeric evaluation (non-authoritative) is around 60% support
 * Most, if not all, !votes seem thoughtful and reasoned
 * Many people expressed concern over the difficult-to-see alert, and emphasized this should be articles only
 * Many supporters said "Only for articles"; some that it should not apply to minor edits
 * The debate attracted input from very experienced Wikipedians - of the 47 !voters above, all but 4 of have over 3000 edits; 16 have over 30,000 edits; 17 are SysOps)

IF

a) The alert only occured on article edits

b) It did not prompt on minor edits

c) Was a clear prompt

...then the proposal would likely get very high support.

The biggest difficulty is c) which would require a change to Mediawiki software.


 * A trial could be conducted, on a random sampling of new users (either with the existing prompt, or an improved one), using a 'control group'.
 * It might be possible for us to implement that through the edit filter
 * EF can certainly post up a warning for edits with no edit summary - similar to e.g. MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-blanking. It could also warn only for new users, only for edits > 'n' characters of change. I'm not sure if it can check if the user has enabled the preference to show a warning for blank edit summaries - probably not, and that may cause an issue.
 * EF could possibly used for a sample trial; it could act for only a selected number of specific new users. That would need evaluation for time impact on edits, but may well be possible.
 * Alternatively, a test might be performed via WMF similar to the Foundation test of left-aligned edit links.