Edit Review Improvements/fr

L’amélioration de la révision des contributions est un projet de l’équipe Collaboration, qui cherche à limiter les effets négatifs que les processus de vérification des contributions peuvent avoir sur les nouveaux éditeurs des wikis. La plupart des outils de révision des contributions et de patrouille ont été conçus pour garantir la qualité du contenu et repousser les acteurs malveillants — deux missions d’importance vitale. Cependant, un corps de recherche soulève que ces processus, notamment lorsqu’ils sont automatisés ou semi-automatisés, ont malheureusement pour conséquence de décourager et repousser les éditeurs bienfaisants.

Afin de résoudre ce problème, l’équipe Collaboration recherche des moyens d’écarter les nouveaux utilisateurs bienfaisants du processus de révision des contributions actuel et, en définitive, de mettre en place un processus de révision accueillant qui aide les nouveaux venus à devenir productifs.

Problème

 * La recherche montre que pour les nouveaux éditeurs en particulier, « la révocation des modifications présage à la fois une diminution de l’activité et une réduction de la probabilité d’implication » des éditeurs.
 * Dans le même temps, l’utilisation croissante d’outils automatisés et semi-automatisés pour la vérification des contributions a déclenchée une montée du rejet de nouveaux venus de bonne foi. L’utilisation de ces outils « augmente significativement l’effet négatif de rejet face à l’implication souhaitable du nouveau venu ».
 * Nonobstant la déclaration ci-dessus, les outils de révision des contributions sont essentiels pour les combattants du vandalisme et d’autres personnes travaillant à maintenir l’intégrité et la qualité du wiki. Que pouvons-nous faire pour aider et intéresser les nouveaux utilisateurs tout en maintenant la productivité des combattants du vandalisme et d’autres patrouilleurs ?

Objectifs
Pour finir, ce projet vise à avoir un effet sur la récupération d’éditeurs, un objectif qui s’aligne bien avec les objectifs généraux du Plan 2016–2017 de la Fondation Wikimédia, développé en consultation rapprochée avec la communauté d’utilisateurs. L’approche s’articule en particulier avec les objectifs que le Plan annuel pose pour l’équipe Produit, qui promet, entre autres, d’« investir pour le contenu dans de nouveaux types d’outils… de nettoyage de collaboration ».
 * Assurer que les contributeurs nouveaux venus de bonne foi vivent l’expérience de la vérification de leurs modifications de manière plus constructive et moins décourageante.
 * En proposant des données plus riches dans les modifications récentes, permettre aux patrouilleurs et vérificateurs de tous types de travailler plus efficacement et de poursuivre leurs diverses activités (la lutte contre le vandalisme, le soutien aux nouveaux utilisateurs…) dans un sens plus pertinent et plus ciblé.

Solutions
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.

While research shows that new editors are particularly vulnerable to rejection, there’s also evidence that edit-review and even rejection can be a powerful learning experience for newcomers. For reviewers interested in supporting new users, then, a stream of edits that are a) likely to be reverted but which were b) made in good faith will, we hope, represent a string of teachable moments.

The edit analysis described above will be made available initially to users in two ways :
 * On the Special:Recent Changes page, where a suite of new filters will be provided as a beta feature (read a description of the planned new features for Special:Recent Changes)
 * In a new machine-readable feed dubbed ReviewStream (ReviewStream Product Description), designed to be ingested by downstream edit-review tools.

Activité en cours

 * To visualize possible product directions, the Collaboration Team is exploring design concepts while continuing to research the issues.
 * 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

Amélioration du filtrage dans la page Modifications récentes
More informations



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.

Étapes initiales
Initially, namespaces and tags won't be integrated into the filtering system. Filters related to ORES will be supported. These filter 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.

Plans pour l’avenir
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.

Principes
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.

Documents connexes

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