Editing Project:Village pump (proposals) (section)

== Rolling out the edit wizard ==

For the past couple of months, {{u|Firefly}}, {{u|SD0001}}, and I have been advising a [[Google Summer of Code]] project by {{u|Ankit18gupta}} to create a new way for beginners to learn how to edit: the [[User:Ankit18gupta/Editwizard|"edit wizard"]], a step-by-step form for making edits. You can try it on a random page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Random&withJS=MediaWiki:Try-edit-wizard.js at this link] (click the "Edit Wizard" tab at the top). I'd like to see it go live on an arbitrary article to test it out and see how useful it is to people - perhaps one of the mid-ranking articles on [[WP:Popular pages]], like maybe [[Britney Spears]]. The project is still at the prototype stage, but the bones are there and the instructions will definitely be greatly expanded before anything gets published - I just figured we could start the conversation now. So, let me know what you think. If we have consensus here, I'll pick an article (based on what gets said here) and also get consensus at its talk page, then implement it (which, if we can't figure out anything else, might have to be through [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]). [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
:Tried it at the link you gave, clicked it, got "give a source for your fact" with a field to enter a URL. Uh, what? Perhaps I just wanted to correct a typo, rewrite a sentence to get it to flow better, or remove an unsourced claim? The first screen I get is completely out of the blue and isnot how an "editing wizard" should start. Seems to be not ready for implementation. It doesn't get better further on, a very limited tool which ends up posting an edit request to the talk page apparently?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7mm-08_Remington&type=revision&diff=1103101186&oldid=1028994090] "Spot where to add the fact", which fact? All I did was give an url, a quote, and a translation: I didn't present any fact. This tool will create lots of confusion, many edit requests, and little actual benefit. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::The directions will be substantially improved. The intended workflow is (1) think of a statement (fact) to add to the article, (2) get a source, (3) get a quote from the source that supports your statement, (4) rephrase the quote in your own words so that it's suitable to be included in the article, (5) pick a location in the article for your new text to go. As for the other types of edits, some will be added to the wizard later; others, like fixing a typo, are trivial to do with the current editor and are thus not in scope. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
:Fram's right – this thing seems to be worse than useless.  Any such functionality should be integrated with the [[WP:VE|Visual Editor]] which could use some better signposting.  For example, I recently thought to try figuring out how to create a redirect with the Visual Editor as this is the sort of thing that causes me difficulty when training newcomers.  I've long known how to do this with the wikitext editor but it's not obvious how to do this in the Visual Editor.  I did manage to find out where the function was hidden but I still feel uncertain.  As we're still digesting that interface, we don't need another completely new one, thanks.  [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::As said below by others, the Visual Editor is not the right place for this because the point is to replace the editing interface with something less bewildering. The WMF Growth team is doing some nice work with putting such signposting and feedback in the editor: see {{phab|T265163}}. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support pilot''' I tried the tool. It works well. It communicates the point that when people edit Wikipedia they should start by preparing to cite sources. I support implementing this tool on a few articles with support of community members watching them, which could mean giving notice at a WikiProject or other public forum. I see the criticism in this discussion and I am not persuaded. The future of Wikipedia will include technological change and either the community will have input into it, or the community will not. This is a solid research and development project which produced a tool and concept worth testing and discussing. The proposed pilot is unlikely to be disruptive. I appreciate that the pilot is designed for community participation. If anyone wants to criticize research and development in general, then I encourage them to make a proposal for funding to [[:meta:Grants:Start]] and request sponsorship to organize community review. There are tens of US$millions a year being spent on Wikimedia software development which produces wide changes and yet typically receive less attention or review than student projects like this one. This is a summer student project. Of course this should proceed, this pilot is small, has disclosure, and is a model for collaboration in the way the wiki community wants for all development. I appreciate protection and criticism but be aware of the scale of that big money; if this student pilot seems scary then the big picture is not in view. If there is a problem with this project, then say what would make the development process better, then escalate those ethical requirements up the chain to the paid development. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
**Ignoring for now the discussion about the actual tool and whether it communicates well or badly, let me start by adressing the remainder of your post: what? "The future of Wikipedia will include technological change and either the community will have input into it, or the community will not." And? What is the relevance? Some new bit of technology is proposed, and the community ''gives'' input. How is that a reason to support (or oppose) this thing? "I appreciate that the pilot is designed for community participation." Yes, that's why I tested it, that's my participation. And then I gave my input on it, which supposedly is the benefit of this community-led project. Good. Still no idea why you ramble on about it as if all of this is important for the implementation or somehow negates the criticism. "Of course this should proceed, this pilot is small, has disclosure, and is a model for collaboration in the way the wiki community wants for all development." Yes, by all means, proceed, ''by looking at the criticism and coming back with an improved tool'', not by brushing aside the criticism because this is a student project with collaboration. "If there is a problem with this project, then say what would make the development process better, then escalate those ethical requirements up the chain to the paid development." Now you've completely lost me; the "problem" with this project is the current end product, which isn't ready to be placed on articles. I have no idea what "ethical requirements" I should escalate to what "paid development", I am giving feedback on the current ''end result'' which is being proposed, and which needs serious improvements before putting it into alpha testing. I have ''no'' problems with the way this project is otherwise handled, no "ethical" qualms, no comments on any of that. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Fram}} This is a routine pilot with a functional tool and limited scope. I wish that we had a guideline or rubric for making judgements at scale for allowing or denying such proposals. I disagree that this "needs serious improvements before putting it into alpha testing", but I wish that I could point to a published guide for determining this. Do you have any general ideas for how to determine when a tool is ready for alpha testing? I feel like we should have a standard process for making judgements by the 100s every year. I have the feeling that the main reason why this proposal is getting criticism is that it is being documented for community comment, and if this proposal were not disclosed as is more typical, then there would be no objection to the testing. I do not want the outreach and documentation itself to be the cause for the negative response. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Except that it isn't a functional tool. What is the purpose of the pilot? To get actionable feedback. Look above, look below, you have plenty of actionable feedback already. I doubt that such pilots are being started "by the 100s every year", it's not as if we get new tabs at the main interface constantly. "the main reason why this proposal is getting criticism " is that the tool is at the moment not good at all, and will only confuse newbies or IPs, not help them. "if this proposal were not disclosed as is more typical, then there would be no objection to the testing." Duh, if no one knew this was being tested, no one would object. That's not the winning argument you believe it is. If people would find out that some editors are testing a poor tool on IPs or newbies without prior disclosure, then those editors could get into serious trouble. In this case on the other hand, there is no reason at all to get anyone into trouble, people should be thanked for trying something: but that doesn't mean that the result should be supported or even be considered ready for limited testing to unwary users. The testing that is being done here and now, by volunteers willing to test it, is a perfect first step. But accepting that those volunteers then tell you that it isn't yet ready for wider testing as proposed is also necessary (just like having to accept that people may even tell you "never" instead of "not yet"). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*Perhaps it might be helpful to rename this tool to the "Edit ''request'' wizard"? Since it seems to be about making edit requests, not direct edits to the article. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:While "edit request wizard" is a good description of the current state of the project, I envision an edit request as only one possible outcome for the workflow: perhaps the edit could be actually applied to the article for advanced editors, or the user's mentor could be pinged or other help sought in real-time. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*Seems like this still has issues.  Running in to dead-end workflows on this.  Went to the page, put in a source, it did say "Source probably OK".  No idea what the "Select the sentence" is suppose to do, there was no UI feedback on this.  Do you try to insert the cursor somewhere? Do you highlight something?  No idea there - but it did let me continue.  Put in the "quote from your source", then just got a dead end of "The quote does not match..." and no way to continue from there - dead end stop at this point.  Compare this to if I would have just used the wiki editor and the insert source, that works just fine. Sample reference used here was: <code><nowiki>{{cite journal |last1=Trimble |first1=Virginia |last2=Aschwanden |first2=Markus J. |last3=Hansen |first3=Carl J. |title=Astrophysics in 2005 |journal=Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific |date=2006 |volume=118 |issue=845 |pages=947–1047 |doi=10.1086/506157 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/506157 |issn=0004-6280}}</nowiki></code> — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
**Same happens with Google Books (with preview or with snippets both), you put in a straight quote from the book but it doesn't work. "The quote does not match. Please make sure the quote is copied/pasted exactly from the source". [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
**:The tool is only relevant for web sources, as that is usually what beginners use mostly. It tries to load the URL (in the backend) to verify the quote. As of now, this only works for simpler websites that put the text in the HTML source, not sites like Google Books or JSTOR where the text may be embedded in images or iframes or other fancy elements, or loaded via JavaScript (although the last limitation is [https://github.com/Ankit-Gupta18/Edit-Request-Wizard/issues/3 probably solvable]). – [[User:SD0001|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #C30">SD0001</span>]] ([[User talk:SD0001|talk]]) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
**::Maybe if the quote fails, it should continue anyway.  Tell them it doesnt see it, or cant read it - continue anyway?  And just note that with the output? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
**:::If we allowed continuing anyway, a user could submit arbitrary text as the quote. We're trying to minimize the amount of arbitrary text users can submit. The reasoning behind requiring exact quotes is if the website is OK and the quote comes from the website, the quote is probably fine to post. Regarding Google Books, I'm hoping for a technical solution, but we may have to just not check Google Books quotes (which hopefully people won't take advantage of). [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Blocking issue''' this should be resolvable.  The very last page of the dialog with the "Send edit request" button needs to display [[MediaWiki:wikimedia-copyrightwarning]]; and extra verbiage that this is a publish action as referenced in that message.  Reason being is that this is introducing a new editor that would allow users to publish new works and they need to agree to the TOU and release their work under the appropriate license to do so. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Also, someone more in the know about toolforge - are there are differences in the privacy policy or access to private info there that unsuspecting editors need be aware of before they get connected to it for this tool? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Additional Easy-to-fix '''blocking issue''': prior to publishing this to production users, especially anon users, the script needs to be moved out of userspace - prob best to gadgetize it as well and load via ?withgadget. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*::Yes, I had noticed that earlier, but was considering waiting on bringing it up until seeing whether this discussion ended with a consensus to proceed. But definitely seconded; this should not be rolled out while the main code is still in userspace. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 16:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:::Roger that. It'll definitely be a gadget before any rollout. [https://github.com/Ankit-Gupta18/Edit-Request-Wizard/issues/19 Bug filed] for the copyright boilerplate. And I'm not sure on the toolforge privacy policy, but at least I don't think this is the first use of toolforge for a similar purpose. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]
*::::Github is being a pain, please add this to the ticket:
*::::<nowiki>
*::::It could go right down here:
*::::![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/99730619/183674444-83719bff-cdc7-41bd-b8ce-806b9fff00bf.png)
*::::Compare to how reply tool loads it below the input area:
*::::![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/99730619/183674832-8fb1b715-2790-4363-a3ce-c0188e3e86bd.png)
*::::To get around the verbiage mismatch, perhaps the wizard can change the label from "Send Edit Request" to "Publish Edit Request" - that way you don't have to fork the copyright or add more text that "Send equals Publish" ?
*::::</nowiki>
*::::— [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Yep, we'll use the reply tool's appearance as a guide. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 15:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*I think the fundamental question will be how are the problems that arose from the [[Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool|article feedback tool]] going to be avoided? It produced comments with a very low signal-to-noise ratio, thus requiring a high number of editors to sift through effectively, which did not emerge. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:I thought a lot about the article feedback tool and its issues while designing this. Here, we're trying to restrict what users can post with this, using code, to the point where what they post isn't too useless. The URL is verified to be on [[WP:RSP|RSP]] and the quote is verified to be from the URL. The actual text that goes on the article will be more difficult (i.e. impossible to do perfectly) but I'm hoping that making users get over the first two hurdles will help. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As it now turns out that this is actually an edit request wizard, note that we have one already – see [[WP:ERW]].  I'm not sure whether anyone uses it but the focus should be on improving it rather than re-inventing another way of doing exactly the same thing.  See also [[feature creep]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 18:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:The edit request wizard is really unintuitive and is implemented by giving instructions as part of the wikitext editing window{{snd}}the worse possible newbie experience. It is not a serious contender with this JavaScript tool. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:: This offering does not seem to be a serious contender either as no groundwork has been done.  For example, there's a project [[WP:WPEDITREQ]] –  "''We cover anything related to edit requests on the English Language Wikipedia''".  But they don't seem to have been consulted about this proposal!  And I don't suppose the WMF have been consulted either.  My view is that something fundamental like this should be part of the MediaWiki interface so that it is fully integrated with logging, permissions and other architectural features.  It would then get ongoing support and development rather than being a one-off summer intern project. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 06:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)     
*I fully support prototyping this and give my thanks to @[[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] for his work on this. I agree with Xaosflux about the outstanding blocking issues prior to implementing this. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:I am facing a lot of problems at the "Quote from your source that supports your fact" stage, though, and anticipate that major bugs should be resolved before deploying even as a prototype. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*::Yup, that'll have to be worked out. Thank you for the support. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*When I tested this a couple weeks ago I also found it very promising but I'm not sure I'd say it's ready to use with actual new editors outside of testing (likely with developer monitoring). Beyond the blockers that have been noted, I think the edits that are produced are going to be hard - needlessly so - to action. That said I agree with L235 that the opportunity to guide editors through how to write a good edit, step by step, and which does some degree of checking (i.e. it's doing some look to see if the source is a reasonable source), is going to be a huge benefit and will be what distinguishes this (potentially) from the Article Feedback Tool. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Yes, the current area of development work is making requests include wikitext and a full cite template  [[Special:Permalink/1101384135|like this]]. We could even write a gadget that could apply the edit in one click from the talk page (with some improvements to the "pick where your text goes" part of the form). And yeah, better instructions are at the top of my to-do list. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 03:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
:I have some questions:
:#Is this for protected pages, or any page?
:#Will this use an edit request template, or just add a talk page message?
:#Who is going to patrol this? There are already plenty of request queues that don't get enough attention.
:And some comments:
:#As Fram pointed out, there needs to be a way to make copy edits.
:#There needs to be some notes about consensus, npov and likely a huge number of other content pags.
:#The overwhelming majority of edit requests that aren't horribly malformed or vandalism contain blpvio, npov issues, and fringe issues. This is going to basically create another queue for people to clear trash from. The vast majority of constructive edit requests are copyedits, and this tool doesn't handle those.
:#Is the best we can do to attract new editors (who almost never come from those making edit requests) is ask other editors to make edits for them? The best solution to "it's hard for some people to learn to edit" is "just make the nerds do the actual editing?" Does that mean we've given up on visual editor? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] for your question 2, this is what the output currently produces: [[Special:PermaLink/1103158365#Edit_Request_made_by_Xaosflux_15:16,_8_August_2022_(UTC)]].  I'd think these should probably be enqueued in a category somewhere too, likely under [[:Category:Wikipedia edit requests]] where all the other ER's go. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 21:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Regarding backlog, there are over {{#expr: {{PAGESINCAT:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests}} + {{PAGESINCAT:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests}} }} open edit requests requests that most users can handle, with a backlog to May 2022 as of now. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
::::The vast majority of users never look at those, however, which is how I have more than 10,000 handled requests. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support prototyping''' - consider this backing for up to 3 articles to be selected for alpha testing, along the basis proposed by Enterprisey. The damage it can do is tiny (most of the issues I came across trying it out will just mean requests don't get made), and as a student summer project, it's not like it'll slip into general use without far more community discussion. There are indeed changes that should be made, and I'd have significant things I wanted to discuss before a broader rollout including it occurring at all. '''But none of that prevents alpha testing'''. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*:For more specific feedback, the "quote your source" bit needs to be WAY less pushy, especially with regard to google book snippets. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 01:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*As you can see above, I oppose rolling this out to unsuspecting editors in its current state, I don't get why you would do this when there is so much to be improved first. But ''if'' it gets rolled out, then please don't start at a controversial BLP like Britney Spears, or better yet don't start at BLPs full stop. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*I think something more like [[User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/FormattedEditRequest]] (maybe with VE?) would be nice.&nbsp;&#8213;&nbsp;<span id="Qwerfjkl:1660051314682: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>]] 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)</span>
*I just spent some time testing this tool. There are a number of problems with it and I'm afraid that this will confuse newbies more than it helps them. This needs a lot more work before going live, even as a pilot test. Some issues:
**The form does not accept URLs in the format of "www.example.com". It has to be prefixed with http:// or https://. The error message simply says "This is not a valid URL" and does not explain why. I don't think it will be obvious to less tech-literate users (presumably the intended audience of this tool) what the issue is. 
**If you enter a Twitter, Facebook, etc. URL, the wizard states that it is an unreliable source and refuses to proceed. While these are indeed unreliable in most situations, there are plenty of valid uses per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. Outright ''banning'' these sources contradicts policy and is unnecessary considering that the wizard creates an edit request, so if the source is inappropriate the request will be declined anyway.
**Paywalled sources cannot be used as the wizard will not be able to verify the quote. This prevents the use of most RS for medical/scientific articles and even many news sources.
**Formatting issues can cause the wizard to say that the quote doesn't match. For instance I was unable to input the three lines starting with "Another approach utilized by some laboratories to obtain reliable results..." by copy-pasting from [https://www.annlabmed.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.3343/alm.2022.42.5.515].
**The instructions to copy-paste a quote and "rephrase the quote in your own words" seem to encourage close paraphrasing. Articles are properly written by reading and understanding a variety of sources, not cobbling together lightly rephrased quotes from individual sources.
**As mentioned above the tool does not support fixing typos, copyediting, removing vandalism, etc. In my experience most new editors start out by making these sorts of minor edits rather than adding substantial content. 
*I'd encourage those evaluating this proposal to look at their own newbie edits and see if they would have been able to make them using this tool. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_smear&diff=prev&oldid=900293897 This] was my first edit - it doesn't involve adding prose, so it wouldn't have been supported. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_smear&diff=prev&oldid=900488139 This] is my first edit that added referenced content. The wizard would have prevented me from adding this as it cites offline sources and Google Books. Rather than making things easier for new users, this tool seems to restrict their ability to edit for no good reason. The idea that newbies and IP editors should only cite non-paywalled webpages (but don't think of adding, e.g., an announcement about a new album sourced to a band's verified Twitter account) is misguided. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 15:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)