Edit Review Improvements/pt-br

As Melhorias à Revisão de Edições são um projeto da equipe de Colaboração, que está à procura de maneiras para reduzir os efeitos negativos que os processos atuais de revisão de edições podem ter para novos editores. Most edit-review and patrolling tools were designed to safeguard content quality and fend off bad actors—both vitally important missions. A body of research, however, suggests that these processes can, particularly when they involve automated or semi-automated tools, have the unintended consequence of discouraging and even driving away good-faith new editors.

Para resolver esse problema, a equipe de Colaboração está investigando maneiras para separar novos usuários dos fluxos de trabalho atuais de revisão de edições, e fornecer um processo de revisão que ajude-os a se tornarem colaboradores produtivos.

Problema

 * Pesquisas mostram que para novos editores, “ter suas edições revertidas tanto diminui suas atividades quanto reduz sua permanência”.
 * Ao mesmo tempo, o maior uso de ferramentas automatizadas levou a um aumento na rejeição de novatos. The use of these tools “significantly increases the negative effect of rejection on desirable newcomer retention.”
 * Não obstante o anterior, ferramentas de revisão são essenciais para a luta contra o vandalismo e para manter a integridade e a qualidade da wiki. How can we help and retain new users while maintaining the productivity of vandalism fighters and other edit reviewers?

Objetivos
Por fim, esse projeto visa obter um efeito na retenção de editores, um objetivo que se alinha bem com os objetivos gerais do Plano Anual para 2016-2017 da Fundação Wikimedia, desenvolvido em consulta com a comunidade.
 * Garantir que novos editores de boa-fé tenham experiências de edição e de revisão mais construtivas e menos desencorajantes.
 * Fornecer mais informações sobre mudanças recentes, permitir que revisores trabalhem com mais eficiência e que busquem interesses diversos (como remover vandalismo e auxiliar novos usuários) de maneira mais efetiva e dedicada.

The approach tracks in particular with the goals the Annual Plan lays out for the Product Team, which promise, among other things, to “Invest in new types of content…curation and collaboration tools.”

Soluções
To begin to address the problems of struggling but good-faith newcomers, a good first step will be to ensure that reviewers can find them. To make this possible, we propose to analyze recent changes using data from a variety of sources, including and most notably the machine-learning program ORES (Objective Revision Evaluation Service). ORES’s good faith model, trained on human judgement, can find 95% of good-faith edits with 98% accuracy. ORES can also predict edits that will be reverted and those that are damaging to the wikis.

Enquanto pesquisas mostram que novos editores são particularmente vulneráveis a rejeição, há também evidências de que revisões e até rejeições podem ser uma potente experiência de aprendizagem para novatos. Para revisores interessados em ajudar novos usuários, um fluxo de edições que a) podem ser revertidas mas foram b) feitas em boa-fé irão, esperamos, representar uma série de momentos de aprendizagem.

A análise descrita acima será disponibilizada para usuários de duas maneiras:


 * Na página Especial:Mudanças recentes, onde um conjunto de novos filtros será fornecido como recurso beta (leia uma descrição sobre os novos filtros para revisão de edições)
 * Em um novo feed lido por máquinas chamado de ReviewStream (descrição do produto), designado para ser usado por ferramentas de revisão de edições.

Atividade atual

 * Para visualizar possíveis direções a serem seguidas, a equipe de Colaboração está explorando conceitos de design, enquanto continua a pesquisar os problemas.
 * To better gauge the size of the problem and be able to track progress, we’re working to define and measure new-editor retention.


 * Design Research is organizing and conducting interviews with users touched by this issue in various ways, to better understand their motivations and workflows. Groups who will be interviewed in the near term include: anti-vandalism patrollers, recent changes patrollers, Teahouse hosts, Welcoming Committee members, and AfC reviewers.
 * The Research and Data team is working to make predictions better by refining the accuracy of prediction models.


 * There was a discussion of the project at Wikimania 2016, in June

Improving filtering in Recent Changes page
More information



In order to help reviewers to easily find the contributions they look for, we plan to improve the way filtering works on the Recent Changes page. The goal is to make the list of contributions easy to filter, allow for more filter criteria (especially those relevant for helping newcomers) and facilitate combining multiple filters for different purposes.

This interactive prototype illustrates the filtering concept proposed. For additional context, you can check.

Before reaching there, this will be done in multiple steps inside a beta feature. More details below.

Initial steps
Initially, namespaces and tags won't be integrated into the filtering system. Filters related to ORES will be supported. These filters include:
 * Review. Filters that allow reviewers to focus on those contributions not reviewed yet, or those already processed by other reviewers.
 * Contribution quality. Filters that allow to identify contributions that are good or damaging.
 * User intent. Filters that allow to identify contributions that were made in good or bad faith.
 * User experience level. Filters that allow to target edits depending on the expertise of their author.

Planes futuros
Creating the streams/pages of “teachable moments” described above has the potential to establish edit-review as a new space for instructing and supporting new editors. The mere existence of such a platform, however, won’t in itself ensure that this new practice will take root. To truly have an impact on newcomer retention, interventions may be required at multiple points in the editing and review cycles: before publication, to spot problems and enable authors to seek help; during review, to facilitate a constructive process; and even after review, to help new users overcome rejection and learn from from their experiences.

In addition to exploring ideas for intervening at various points, we’re pursuing answers to questions such as these:


 * How can we bring reviewers to this new activity?
 * What would make reviewers most effective in the job of supporting newcomers during edit review?
 * How can we make the process rewarding for reviewers, so that they stay involved?

The counter-vandalism community also has an important role to play in this arena. Richer data about edits and editors should make patrollers of all types not only more discriminating about which edits might be in good faith, but also more efficient at their job of combating harm. It will be important to work closely with vandalism fighters and others to understand how their processes and tools might best be adapted to realize these potential gains.

Princípios
As we pursue this project, the following principles will guide our planning.


 * Smart but human. Use technology to support rather than replace human interaction. Artificial intelligence can provide analysis, but humans should make decisions.
 * Cross-community. Find solutions that will work across language groups and projects, rather than building wiki-specific tools.
 * Platform not feature. Seek solutions that are extensible and reusable by current and future community-created and WMF tools.
 * Mobile. Although edit-review is not currently popular on mobile, consider mobile users carefully in our plans.
 * Adoption. In addition to creating new technology, focus on finding ways to encourage reviewers to adopt and continue to use the new tools.
 * Integration. In seeking new solutions, build on and integrate with existing practices whenever possible.
 * Incremental approach. As we move into this new area, proceed incrementally to each milestone and then evaluate where to go next.
 * Participatory design. Collaborate with editors and tool developers already working in this space.

Documentos relacionadas

 * Grants:IdeaLab/Fast and slow new article review
 * Research:Newcomer survival models