From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Support

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

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

  • 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

  • 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Support

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

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

  • 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

  • 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook