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- Note: this work is going to happen in T349119.
- 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?
- We think this approach will scale to future checks in so far as the the Checks shown field is open-ended and people can populate it with whatever Edit Check they are providing feedback about.
- 2. How might we configure the preload in such a way that people reporting false positives are prompted to share the information that's needed to assess and discuss the validity of the report while also being technically "sound enough" for Reply and Subscribe buttons to appear within the report section?
- Reply and Subscribe buttons now appear by way of T343168#9197813
@Esanders is looking into preloadPreload is now functional. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Edit_check/False_positives/Reports&action=edit§ion=new&dtpreload=1&preloadtitle=%7B%7Bsubst:REVISIONUSER%7D%7D&preload=User_talk:ESanders_(WMF)/EditCheckDraft/preload
- 3. What happens if someone has the New Topic Tool disabled? Might it be possible to override preference in this specific context?
