Jump to content

User:Chzz/es

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 71#Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default

Support

[edit]
28 users expressed support
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  1. Lambiam (talk · contribs) (nominator)
  2. Danaman5 (talk · contribs)
  3. Kudpung (talk · contribs) (strong) *Caveat: except user pages
  4. Markdask (talk · contribs) (strong)
  5. Thryduulf (talk · contribs)
  6. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) *Caveat: articles only
  7. Dmcq (talk · contribs)
  8. Rehman (talk · contribs)
  9. Ebe123 (talk · contribs)
  10. Philcha (talk · contribs)
  11. Joe Decker (talk · contribs)
  12. Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs)
  13. Herostratus (talk · contribs)
  14. Grondemar (talk · contribs) (strong)
  15. Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  16. StuRat (talk · contribs) (articles only)
  17. JayJasper (talk · contribs) (articles only)
  18. Doc Tropics (talk · contribs)
  19. TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) (strong)
  20. Rd232 (talk · contribs) (weak; dependent on the specific dialogue boxes used)
  21. KnowIG (talk · contribs)
  22. A. di M. (talk · contribs)
  23. Dorsal Axe (talk · contribs) (conditional - needs to be clearer)
  24. Ohiostandard (talk · contribs)
  25. The Evil IP address (talk · contribs)
  26. RashersTierney (talk · contribs) (articles)
  27. Chzz (talk · contribs) (strong)
  28. Od Mishehu (talk · contribs)

(+ 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

[edit]
19 users expressed opposition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs)
  2. Ruslik0 (talk · contribs)
  3. Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)
  4. Guoguo12 (talk · contribs)
  5. Dcoetzee (talk · contribs)
  6. Lugnuts (talk · contribs)
  7. SilkTork (talk · contribs)
  8. Cambalachero (talk · contribs) (renamed user, signed as User:MBelgrano)
  9. Manishearth (talk · contribs)
  10. 169.231.53.195 (talk · contribs)
  11. Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  12. Armbrust (talk · contribs) (weak)
  13. Noommos (talk · contribs)
  14. Stickee (talk · contribs)
  15. Jmh649 (talk · contribs) (signed as "Doc James")
  16. ceyockey (talk · contribs)
  17. MC10 (talk · contribs)
  18. Logan (talk · contribs) (strong)
  19. Ched Davis (talk · contribs) (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
Neutral

Equazcion

Other comments

[edit]
  • 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 Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages#Proposed change for MediaWiki:Missingsummary.
  • Should be disabled for minor edits

Evaluation commentary notes from Chzz

[edit]
  • 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.