Extension:Jade

The JADE (Judgment And Dialog Engine) extension provides two new namespaces,  and , used for collecting and discussing judgments. Judgments are an opinion about a wiki revision, diff, or page.

For background information, see the JADE project page.

Translation
To add interface support for your language, please help translate at https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:MessageGroupStats?group=ext-jade

Usage
Pages in the  namespace are difficult to edit by hand, and are intended to be edited through a third-party tool. Currently, no such integrations exist, so please check in again later.

In other words, we've decided to not include a UI, at least in the initial versions of this project, for the same reasons that ORES didn't include a UI at first. We're cutting development costs by focusing on the service itself, and the UI can be a separate effort.

Judgments
A user can make judgments about three types of wiki entities:


 * Diff - Any edit to a page, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=12345678
 * Revision - Snapshot of a page's content, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinharaja_Forest_Reserve?oldid=12345678
 * Page - Attributes of a page which won't change as the page evolves. For example, categories or WikiProjects it might be associated with, or whether the subject is notable.

Judgments are stored together on a wiki page, with one page per entity. Each page contains judgment schemas, and a list of judgments for each schema. Schemas and their data formats are documented in JADE/Labels, and summarized here:


 * damaging - boolean. Is this diff damaging to the content?  false.
 * goodfaith - boolean. Was this diff made in good faith?  true.
 * drafttopic - list of page topics: [ "Hobo stories", "Biography" ]
 * itemquality - string. Wikidata item quality: "A"
 * wp10 (but see T196240) - string. Wikipedia 1.0 assessment (but without lists for some reason): "Stub"

To endorse a judgment, either post a signed comment to its talk page or create another judgment with supporting data and your own comments.

To challenge a judgment, you may use its talk page, or create and endorse an alternative judgment.

These mechanisms should support both Wikipedia's Bold-Revert-Discuss and !vote standards for building consensus, as needed.

We encourage users and integrators to offer free-text justifications or other explanations in the judgment  field. These notes are stored publicly as part of the judgment page and can be edited later.

API
We recommend going through the API for most tasks, since it hides some of the complexities of translation and data structure. The extension supplies append and list methods for the following judgment types:


 * action=judgediffdamaging - Judge an edit as damaging or not.

Parameter signature:
 * : A valid edit token is required.
 * : The revision being judged. Integer.
 * : Whether judging as damaging or not. Boolean.
 * : Rationale or other comments. Optional, string.
 * : Edit summary for the judgment. Optional, string.
 * : Change tags to apply to the judgment. Optional, pipe-separated list of tag names.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container
 * : One of "Success" or "Failure".
 * : Article in which the new judgment was stored. This may contain more judgments about the same target entity.
 * : Judgment page revision before our judgment is created.
 * : New page revision after our judgment is created.

Possible errors: TODO

"Example (must also post a token):"


 * action=judgediffgoodfaith - Judge an edit as good faith or not.

Parameter signature:
 * : A valid edit token is required.
 * : The revision being judged. Integer.
 * : True if judging the edit to be made in good faith, false for bad faith. Boolean.
 * : Rationale or other comments. Optional, string.
 * : Edit summary for the judgment. Optional, string.
 * : Change tags to apply to the judgment. Optional, pipe-separated list of tag names.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container
 * : One of "Success" or "Failure".
 * : Article in which the new judgment was stored. This may contain more judgments about the same target entity.
 * : Judgment page revision before our judgment is created.
 * : New page revision after our judgment is created.

Possible errors: TODO

"Example (must also post a token):"


 * action=judgearticlequality - Assess the quality of an article.

Parameter signature:
 * : A valid edit token is required.
 * : Revision at which we're assessing the article. Page title can be determined from this, so we don't ask for the title or page ID as a separate parameter.
 * : Quality grade on your local wiki's scale, e.g. "FA" or "III".
 * : Rationale or other comments. Optional, string.
 * : Edit summary for the judgment. Optional, string.
 * : Change tags to apply to the judgment. Optional, pipe-separated list of tag names.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container
 * : One of "Success" or "Failure".
 * : Article in which the new judgment was stored. This may contain more judgments about the same target entity.
 * : Judgment page revision before our judgment is created.
 * : New page revision after our judgment is created.

Possible errors: TODO

"Example (must also post a token):"


 * action=query&prop=damagingjudgments - Get damaging judgments for the given revisions.

Parameters: Takes the  parameter, or can be used with a generator returning revisions.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container.
 * : list of judgments,
 * : Boolean, true if judged damaging.
 * : Freeform text notes about the judgment.
 * : Boolean, true if the judgment represents a current consensus.

"Example:"


 * action=query&prop=goodfaithjudgments - Get good-faith judgments for the given revisions.

Parameters: Takes the  parameter, or can be used with a generator returning revisions.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container.
 * : list of judgments,
 * : Boolean, true if judged good faith.
 * : Freeform text notes about the judgment.
 * : Boolean, true if the judgment represents a current consensus.

"Example:"


 * action=query&prop=articlequalityjudgments - Get article quality judgments for the given revisions.

Parameters: Takes the  parameter, or can be used with a generator returning revisions.

Result signature:
 * : Module result container.
 * : list of judgments,
 * : Article quality label. String.
 * : Freeform text notes about the judgment.
 * : Boolean, true if the judgment represents a current consensus.

"Example:"

Wiki, namespace, and title
Judgments are stored on the same wiki as the page being judged, in the  namespace. Permissions for this namespace should be the same as for regular content namespaces. There is also a  namespace for discussion about each JADE page.

The title must correspond to the entity being judged. For example, judgments about the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=12345678 must appear at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade:Diff/12345678. Each type of wiki entity has its own page title structure:


 * Judgment:Diff/12345678
 * Judgment:Revision/12345678
 * Judgment:Page/582115

Note that page titles are translated, for example Russian Wikipedia would have "Суждение:Версия/12345678". These translations are managed in configuration, and ideally are not changed after deployment. See  in mediawiki-config to translate.

Data structure
For more sophisticated integrations, you might want to read and manipulate the judgment structure directly. JADE pages are organized by schema, contain a list of judgments for each schema.

Scoring schemas can only be used on a specific entity type, configure  if you need to change the allowed schemas for any entity type. Wikidata overrides the default  quality scale with , implementing its own quality scale.

One judgment per schema may be chosen as the  value, which should be used to indicate consensus.

The minimum valid  judgment page:

A more interesting example, with conflicting judgments (this is fine), some notes, and both  schemas represented.

Each wiki entity type supports different schemas, here is a  judgment.

Page judgments aren't specific to a revision, for example a page should address the same, mostly stable set of topics over its entire lifetime.

Validation
JADE pages are validated before they are saved to the database, and if the data format is incorrect the edit will be aborted. Internally, we specify most of our validation rules as a JSON schema, which you can read here. You can run your own validation locally using the JSON schema libraries available for many programming languages.

Judgment content must refer to a real revision or page.

An additional validation is done on the page title, which must match the entity being judged as described above.

Detailed validation errors are generated internally, but aren't made available to frustrated users—please follow progress in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T197653

Bots, abuse, notability
The JADE service can only handle a small volume of judgments at the moment, so we ask that discretion is used when writing any automation against it. There is storage available for judgments, but only for a human-scale magnitude of them. Please do not create judgments for any type of "autopatrolled" predictions.

Beyond this initial holding-back of bot opinions, we don't have notability requirements for JADE. Enjoy!