Editing Project:Village pump (proposals) (section)

== As a general principle, we should ask editors to fix their mistakes. Why don't we? ==

We have, or have had, systems in place that drop a user talk note where an editor adds a disambiguation link to an article, or leaves unbalanced brackets in an article.

Why don't we have something set up so that for ''every'' [[WP:CHECKWIKI]] issue for which we scan (e.g., an editor putting a footnote in a header), we have a bot find the editor who made that edit and drop them a note informing them of the relevant rule and asking that they fix it?  [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 15:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:In theory, I think this would be a great idea, but requires a bit of thought.  We could certainly come up with a list of things that can be checked automatically (in the tradition of [[Lint (software)|lint]]).  We could then drop a (friendly and educational) note on the editor's page, alerting them to the issue and suggesting improvements.  The problem is, as anybody who has worked with a linting system knows, the burden of sorting out false or trivial alerts can exceed the value of the system if you're not careful. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:In principle this is a nice idea, but out of interest what do you mean by "putting a footnote in a header"? Do you mean including references in the lead, as in (from today's OTD) [[Rædwald of East Anglia]] notes [1] and [2]? While this is in principle not correct, all lead facts should be mentioned and cited in the body, and would be something to bring up at GA or FA, we definitely shouldn't be discouraging this for each and every article of any quality. It is much better for a fact to be referenced only in the lead than not referenced at all... Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::I think BD2412 meant something like <code><nowiki>== Awards<ref>{{cite web ... }}</ref> ==</nowiki></code> in articles. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 16:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:: Yes, per [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]], last I checked we have [[Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 504 dump|over 5,000 instances]] of a footnote in a section header, with many of these being in the ==References== header, and therefore not properly associated with specific article text. In every one of those cases, some editor first put that ref tag in the header, and a search of the article history should reveal which one, so they can be messaged and asked to fix the error. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:: To be clear, by the way, I am not just suggesting that we do this going forward, but that we do this retroactively with respect to currently-existing errors. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:I've seen <code><nowiki>== Awards==<ref>{{cite web ... }}</ref></nowiki></code> too, and I am fine if we have that notice, but I don't I know how many of these standard type mistake edits there are. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
:As a general principle experienced users should fix mistakes that are made by new editors. Why don't we? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::Oh, I do, sometimes, but I have other things to do, and don't want to spend all of my time fixing other editor's mistakers. And fixing one's own mistakes when they are pointed out is how we hopefully learn not to make the same mistakes again. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 22:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Phil Bridger}} let me ask you this. Do you remember all of your old mistakes? Some of the things we are fixing today were originally done years ago by editors who are still active, and now experienced. If, say, fourteen years ago, you did something erroneous in an article and it was still there, wouldn't you want a bot to drop you a note asking you to revisit it? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 05:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:I just thought I would trial a problem solving approach to proposal evaluation.
:Problem
:* Quality - Editors creating work for others 
:Root Cause
:* Process - The editing systems are not [[Poka-yoke|mistake proof]].
:* Training - Help is not [[context-sensitive]], but in complex guidelines. [[Ignorantia juris non excusat]] (ignorance of the law is no excuse) approach
:* User Experience  - Overload of information. Action and Error message are complex and long.    
:* Policy - [[WP:5P4]] "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" does not specify that editors should not waste other's time. 
:* Process Management  - There is no overview of errors to fix
:* People - Lack of editors to fix minor issues  "I do, sometimes, but I have other things to do, and don't want to spend all of my time fixing other editor's mistakes. " @[[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]]
:Proposed solution
:* Create an automated system to ask problem creator to fix. 
:Can we trial it at low cost?
:* Yes - identify minor errors and manually send errors, and see responses both from a bot type editor name and from a normal editor name,     
:Risks 
:* Against Best practise -[[Blame_in_organizations]] 
:* Editor retention : Creator of error may respond negatively especially if many years old  (See comment by @[[User:BD2412|BD2412]]) [[justice delayed_is_justice_denied]] or maybe there needs to be a [[statute of limitations]]
:* Editor Retention - Major reason for "Golden editors" is perceived negative interactions, especially on talk (there is WMF research somewhere that someone can find)  
:* Editor retention : Bot Human interactions can be problematic
:* New Process Risk- Pushing error notifications to editors.
:* User Experience - We are allowing a bot to send errors a few minutes later rather than tell the editor at the time 
:* Editor retention - Notifications are static. If the error is fixed, before the editor looks, then wasted effort.
:Cost 
:* Labour - Increased effort of "ask to fix" vs "fix yourself" (Wikipedia Editor hours)
:* Quality - High Failure rate - Using talk as an example (and figures based on a random sample I just did), only 5 to 10 % get a response within 5 years, or before being archived. FA  are 50 &, stubs are zero
:* Turnover/Retention - (see @[[User:BD2412|BD2412]]
:Benefit to Readers
:* Would they notice if this is not fixed?
:What do we need to monitor current state and success rate?
:* Data - results from similar request processes. (notifications, messages, talk)
:* Data - percentage  of minor errors after receiving notification  
:* Data - percentage of active editors who stop being active within say 12 months of receiving notification, compared with editors who don't receive notification 
:* Definition of success -what percentage is success
:* Policy - no process for evaluating proposal success   [[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b]] ([[User talk:Wakelamp|talk]]) 08:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::* {{re|Wakelamp}} For the record, the "don't want to spend all of my time fixing other editor's mistakes" comment that you quote was [[User:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]], not me. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 16:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Doh! Corrected[[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b]] ([[User talk:Wakelamp|talk]]) 13:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::*I like this evaluation approach. But I am not sure I entirely agree with the problem statement. Or rather, I'm not sure I agree that it is a problem at all. Imperfect edits are how the wiki grows. Someone who makes a flawed edit is not "creating work for others"; they are building the project in the way it was meant to be built. But someone who demands that the contributor ''fix'' that flawed edit is, in fact, the one who is creating work for others -- and is also contributing to the dangerous perception that imperfect contributions are unacceptable. That this approach would even seem plausible is, I think, a sign of how unsustainably closed (and commensurately stressed and overburdened)  the editor community has become, as the heightened barriers to entry leave a few core users to attempt to bear the entire weight of the project alone. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] ([[User talk:Visviva|talk]]) 03:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
::*:@[[User:Visviva|Visviva]] I agree that imperfect edits are crucial ( and actually quite collaboratiev if people work well). Thank-you for sayimg you like the approach. if it was done as a one page per problem, the evaluation approach seeems to fit WP. There are gaps though in how it would wok
::*:I agree that the problem coukd have been stated better, and I aslo unhappy with the phrase "making  work for others" The work of things such as
::*:* Drive by tagging, 
::*:* Reverting a whole change when part of it has merit
::*:* Causing disproportinate conflict for good faith edits,
::*:* All the various editor "sins".... [[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b]] ([[User talk:Wakelamp|talk]]) 09:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
::*:**@[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]], @[[User:Visviva|Visviva]], @[[User:Wakelamp|Wakelamp]], [https://checkwiki.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/checkwiki.cgi?project=enwiki&view=high Here] is a list of high-priority checkwiki errors. Presumably, at least some of these, the more egregious, would be the ones tracked. These errors tend to be tricky to automatically fix, and also cause visual errors.&nbsp;&#8213;&nbsp;<span id="Qwerfjkl:1659805966440:WikipediaBWLCLNVillage_pump_(proposals)" class="BawlCmt">[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)</span>
*The answer is very simple: This is a volunteer organization, and you cannot coerce anyone to do anything they don't feel like doing.  If you tell a Wikipedia editor to do something, they can just ''not do it'', and then what?  If you see a mistake, feel free to fix it yourself, or not, no one can make you.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
*I recently opened [[phab:T315072]] – which I think is a technically feasible solution to alert users of issues ''while'' they are in the editing window. – [[User:SD0001|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #C30">SD0001</span>]] ([[User talk:SD0001|talk]]) 04:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)