Edit check

From mediawiki.org

In the 2023–2024 fiscal year, the Editing Team is working on a set of improvements for the visual editor to help new volunteers understand and follow some of the policies and guidelines necessary to make constructive changes to Wikipedia projects.

Below, you can find information about the goals of this project, the history that has informed it, and why the Wikimedia Foundation's Product Department is prioritizing this work.

Watch Editing team/Community Conversations for scheduled meetings about this project.


  1. Newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful.
  2. Moderators at the English and French Wikipedias will notice improvements in the quality of edits newcomers are making and be motivated to configure how Edit Check presents policies to them.




A screenshot showing a newcomer at ha.wiki accompanying the new content they were adding with a reference after mw:Edit check prompted them to do so.
Newcomer at ha.wiki accompanying the new content they were adding with a reference after Edit check prompted them.


  • A mockup showing what a user experience that presents people with multiple Edit Checks within a single edit could look like.
    An early mockup of what the multi-check user experience could look like.
    User script Edit check will soon be available via a user script . This will make it easier for volunteers to experiment with Edit check regardless of if and how it is deployed at the wiki they are wanting to assess it on.
  • Multi-Check - Currently, Edit Check is configured to show people one piece of feedback, regardless if other feedback might be warranted. The team is in the early stages of designing a user experience that will accommodate presenting people with multiple checks within a single edit.


Screenshots showing four different potential design directions for the desktop user experience of the next Edit Check: Reference Reliability.
Edit Check (Reference Reliability) design explorations

Next feature: Reference Reliability

The first Edit Check (editcheck-references) prompted people adding new content to include a reference when they did not do so themselves.

The next Edit Check will prompt people to replace a source when they attempt to cite a domain a project has deemed to be spam.

The Editing Team sees this as a first step towards a potential future where editing interfaces can use the consensus stored in pages like w:WP:RSP to offer people feedback about the source they are attempting to cite.

The designs we are exploring are pictured here.

We now need your help: Which approach do you favor most? What about that approach do you appreciate? What questions/concerns do these approaches bring to your mind?

Please share what you think on the talk page!


A screenshot showing Special:RecentChanges filtered for edits Edit Check was activated within
Edit Check edits at ha.wiki

Last Wednesday (11 October 2023), Edit Check became available within the desktop and mobile visual editor at an initial set of wikis: dag.wiki, ee.wiki, fat.wiki, gur.wiki, gpe.wiki, ha.wiki, kg.wiki, ln.wiki, tw.wiki

You can review the edits Edit Check was activated within by filtering Special:RecentChanges using the editcheck-references-activated tag.


Screenshot showing the Edit Check false positive reporting page
Edit Check false positive reporting page

Reporting False Positives

Ahead of the first iteration of Edit check being offered at an initial set of partner wikis, there is a new page to report false positives: Edit check/False positives .

The page draws inspiration from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. It is designed to be an easy for people to:

  1. Report an edit they think Edit Check should NOT have been activated within and
  2. Propose changes to how Edit Check is configured

We are curious to know what – if any – questions, concerns, and/or ideas this new page brings to mind.


A screenshot showing Edit Check prompting someone to add a reference to a new paragraph they added to an en.wiki article.
Edit Check in production (en.wiki)

Trying Edit Check in production

As of today, anyone can try Edit Check by editing any Wikipedia page in the main namespace using VisualEditor.

To try Edit Check, append the following parameter to the URL of the page you would like to edit: ecenable=1. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jollof_rice?veaction=edit&ecenable=1.


A bart chart showing the proportion of new content edits that include a reference, grouped by experience level
Proportion of new content edits that include a reference

Baseline metrics

A chart showing the proportion of new content edits reverted, grouped by user experience level
Proportion of new content edits reverted by user experience level

Two of the metrics the Editing Team is planning to use to evaluate the impact of the initial reference check are:

  1. A decrease in the proportion of new content edits that are reverted
  2. An increase in the proportion of new content edits that include references

To help set targets for the two metrics named above, we recently completed a baseline analysis. Here's some of what we learned:

  • Across all Wikipedias, new content edits that include a reference are ~2x less likely to be reverted (6.2%) than edits that do not include a reference (11.5%)
  • Across all Wikipedias, newcomers and junior editors are less likely to include a new reference with new content edits compared to more senior editors.
    • Of all the new content edits newcomers make across Wikipedias, 12% of these edits include a reference.
    • Of all the new content edits people who have made >500 cumulative edits across Wikipedias, 26% of these edits edit include a reference

You can see per wiki breakdowns in the full report here.


Storing and show decline responses

In March, we shared plans to present people who decline to add a source when Edit Check prompts them to do so with a way to share why they made this decision.

This past week, we converged on how Edit Check will initially make these responses available to experienced volunteers...

To start, the reason someone selects for declining to add a reference when Edit Check invites them to do so will get logged as an edit tag that is "appended" to that edit. Note: the definitions for these yet-to-be defined tags will eventually be stored here: Edit check/Tags .


Two new change tags

This week, two new Edit Check-related change tags became available that you can use to filter Special:RecentChanges.

These tags will help us collectively evaluate the extent to which the reference Edit Check increases the likelihood that people accompany the new content they're adding with a reference.

Tag Description Try it
editcheck-newreference Edits made with the visual editor that involve people adding a new reference to an article in the main namespace. en.wiki, fr.wiki
editcheck-newcontent Edits made with the visual editor that involve people adding new content to article in the main namespace en.wiki, fr.wiki

Note: the logic that determine when the two tags get applied is the same logic that is used to decide whether people should be presented with the reference Edit Check.


Reference Edit Check demo (mobile)

Edit Check Prototype (mobile) ready

A prototype for the first Edit Check is ready! Now, we need your help identifying how it might need to be fixed and improved before being enabled in production as a beta feature.

You can find instructions for trying out the Edit Check prototype and sharing feedback about on the talk page: Seeking Feedback: Edit Check Prototype .

For context, this first Edit Check that will prompt newcomers who are contributing new content without including a corresponding reference to consider doing so.


A screenshot showing what people will see who ''decline'' to ad a citation when Edit Check invites them to do so.
What people who ''decline'' to add a citation when Edit Check invites them to do so might see.

First version

The first version of Edit Check is almost ready for you all to try!

Within the next week, you can expect us to share a link to a test wiki where you can try the Edit Check prototype.

This first iteration will invite people who add more than 50 new characters to an article in the main namespace to include a reference in the edit they're making, IF they have not already done so themselves.

In the meantime, you can see the kinds of edits EditCheck currently thinks warrant a reference, by filtering Recent changes using the newly-introduced editcheck-references tag. View the tag on en.wiki and fr.wiki.


Informed by community conversations (still ongoing)[1][2][3][4] and a series of technical and design investigations[5][6][7], during February the Editing Team became clear about the first version of Edit Check on mobile...

A screenshot showing a dialog within the mobile visual editor that prompts people to add a reference when they do not do so on their own.
The initial version of the mobile Edit Check experience that will prompt people to add a reference.
  • User Experience: the first version of Edit Check will introduce a new step within the mobile visual editor's publishing workflow that people will see if/when they add new content without a reference. Design for the desktop user experience is still underway. See T329579.
  • Usability Testing: to learn whether people understand and can intuitively navigate the mobile Edit Check workflow, we will soon begin a series of usability tests. See T327356.
  • Technical Investigation: Edit Check will use a "transaction-based" approach for determining what new content is added within a given edit session. Work on developing a way to detect individual sentences is ongoing in T324363.
  • Initial Heuristic: To start, the initial Edit Check heuristic will be relatively straightforward in so far as it will prompt people to decide whether the change they are making warrants a reference if/when they are adding a new paragraph and that paragraph does not already contain a reference. See T324730 and T329988#8654867.

Next up: the Editing Team will be implementing the initial Edit Check heuristic (T324730) and a corresponding hidden change tag (T324733) so that we – volunteers and members of the Editing Team – can evaluate the extent to which the reference check heuristic is getting initiated in expected cases.


Work on Edit Check is underway! Below you will find an overview of what the Editing Team is actively working on…

  • Community conversations: Between October 2022 and January 2023, the Editing Team hosted seven community conversations to learn what contributing to Wikipedia has been like for people living in and from Sub-Saharan Africa. Next week, you can expect the team to publish the findings from these conversations and how they will inform the work we do on this project.
  • Initial Focus: The first feature the team will be introducing is one that checks whether the new content people are attempting to add includes a reference. Learn more in the Strategy and Approach section below.
  • Design: The team is actively working on a proposal for what the mobile user experience for the first reference check could be like. In the coming weeks, we will be inviting volunteers to help us revise and refine these designs. In the meantime, you can follow along with this work in Phabricator.
  • Talking with experienced volunteers: for the "reference check" to be useful to inexperienced and experienced volunteers alike, it will need to guide people to cite references in ways that projects expect. In the coming weeks, we'll begin conversations with experienced volunteers to learn what these expectations are so that we can ensure Edit Check is configured in ways that align with them.
  • Technical investigations: For the "reference check" to work, the software will need to know when people are attempting to add new content, whether that new content warrants a reference, and whether it currently contains a reference. The Editing Engineering team is currently doing a series of technical investigations to decide how we will approach building this functionality.

Strategy and Approach[edit]

To equip newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa with the know-how and tools to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful, the Editing Team will be introducing new functionality within the visual editor (desktop and mobile ) that will check the changes people are attempting to make and present them with actions they can take to improve these changes in ways that will align with established Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The first "check" the Editing Team will be introducing is one that will detect when people are attempting to add new content to an existing article without a corresponding reference and prompt them to do so. The functionality will be accompanied by a complimentary set of features that will enable moderators to configure the user experience newcomers and Junior Contributors will see to ensure the software is guiding them to take actions that align with project policies and conventions.


The visual editor's growing popularity among people who are new to editing Wikipedia[8] leads us to think that the editing experience has been reasonably successful at helping inexperienced volunteers learn the technical skills necessary to publish changes to Wikipedia.

The trouble is that the visual editor and other editing interfaces do not make people aware of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines they are expected to follow.

As a result, the changes inexperienced volunteers publish often break established best practices and lead to undesirable outcomes for inexperienced volunteers, experienced volunteers, and Wikipedia projects as a whole:

  1. Inexperienced volunteers become disappointed and frustrated when the good-faith change(s) they arrived to the wiki seeking to make are undone (read: reverted), deleted, and/or scrutinized in inequitable ways. These poor interactions are demotivating and drive these could-be volunteers and community members, and the knowledge that are uniquely positioned to offer, away.[9]
  2. Experienced volunteers/moderators need to do more work reverting low-quality edits and posting messages on inexperienced volunteers' talk pages to make them aware of the policies and/or guidelines they are likely to have unknowingly broken. Continually needing to educate inexperienced volunteers and undo their changes can lead to experienced volunteers becoming skeptical of inexperienced volunteers and impatient with them.
  3. Wikipedia projects struggle to grow and diversify their volunteer populations and shrink the knowledge gaps present within Wikimedia wikis.

This project seeks to address the challenges above by:

  1. Offering inexperienced volunteers relevant and actionable feedback about Wikipedia policies in the precious moments when they are in the midst of making a change using the visual editor.
  2. Equipping moderators with a new ability to specify the feedback inexperienced volunteers are presented with while they are editing

Theory of change[edit]

This project is built on the belief that by surfacing relevant guidance in the precious moments when inexperienced volunteers are in the midst of making a change to Wikipedia and equipping them with the know-how and tools necessary to apply this guidance, they will make changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers value.

In the longer term, the Editing Team thinks that people who are new, particularly people who have historically been excluded from and harmed by established power structures, will feel safe and motivated making changes to Wikipedia if they can accurately predict whether the changes they are attempting to make are aligned with existing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and/or cultural conventions.

More broadly, the Editing Team thinks that to evolve towards a future where wikis' policies and cultural norms – and ultimately, content – reflect the diverse experiences of the people these projects are intended to serve, we first need to make the norms and standards that are currently in place legible and actionable to people while they are editing. This way, volunteers can develop shared awareness of cases where these norms and standards are not having the impacts they were intended to have and decide what – if any – changes they think are worth making to them in response.

Primary audiences[edit]

The Editing Team is centering the needs of people in this work who are:

  1. Experience: Learning the basics of contributing to Wikipedia
    • In the context of this project, we are considering people who are still "learning the basics" to be people who have published <100 cumulative edits to a single, or multiple, Wikipedias. This includes people who are editing Wikipedia for the first time.
  2. Location: Living in Sub-Saharan Africa
  3. Projects: Contributing to the English and French Wikipedias
  4. Motivation: Seeking to fill gaps they notice within Wikipedia

The four focus criteria listed above are outgrowths of:

  • Newcomers are two times more likely to live in Africa or Asia.[10]
  • The movement struggles to retain editors who live outside Europe and North America.[10]
  • People from Sub-Saharan Africa are underrepresented within the movement: people from Sub-Saharan Africa represent only 1% of active unique editors, despite representing 15% of the global population and 7% of the global internet population.[11]
  • 80% of registered editors in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute to English or French Wikipedia.[12]


Reference Detection[edit]

To start, the Editing Team is pursuing an approach with Edit Check that minimizes the likelihood of false positives and is implemented in ways[13] that empower volunteers, on a per-project basis, to evolve the heuristic[14] to become more robust over time.

This strategy amounts to the initial reference Edit Check becoming activated if/when all of the following conditions are met:

  1. A minimum of one new paragraph of text is added to the article someone is editing
  2. The "new paragraph(s) of text" someone has added does NOT include a reference
  3. The changes described in "1." and "2." are happening on a page within the main namespace (NS:0)

The conditions above are implemented and maintained in code here: editcheck/init.js.

The Editing Team arrived at the decision to start with a relatively limited and straightforward set of rules in order to:

  1. Increase the likelihood that newcomers and Junior Contributors find the guidance Edit Check is presenting them with, and the editing experience more broadly, to be intuitive and straightforward so that they feel encourage to return to edit again
  2. Decrease the likelihood that Edit Check is creating more work for experienced volunteers by prompting newcomers and Junior Contributors to add sources when they are not needed

You can learn more about the assumptions that informed the thinking above in phab:T329988#8654867.

Other applications[edit]


The Editing Team thinks it is crucial that moderators be empowered to configure when, and for whom, Edit Check becomes activated. This way, they can be confident the software is promoting behavior they deem to be productive and modify the software when it is not.

In line with the above, and drawing inspiration from how the Edit filter and Growth Team Community configuration systems afford volunteers the ability to audit and configure how they function on-wiki, Edit Check will enable volunteers, on a per project basis to:

  • Audit and edit the logic that determines when the reference Edit Check becomes activated and
  • Review the edits people who are shown Edit Check are making

Work to implement the above is ongoing in phab:T327959.

User Experience[edit]


The first version of Edit Check will introduce a new step within the mobile visual editor's publishing workflow that people will see if/when they add new content without a reference.


Design for the desktop user experience is still underway. See T329579.

Evaluating impact[edit]

The viability[15] of the features introduced as part of the Edit Check project depends on the impacts it causes and averts.

This section describes the:

  1. Impacts the features introduced as part of the Edit Check are intended to cause and avert
  2. Data we will use to help[16] determine the extent to which a feature has/has not caused a particular impact
  3. Evaluation methods we will use to gather the data necessary to determine the impact of a given feature
Desirable Outcomes[17]
ID Outcome Data Evaluation Method(s)
1. Increase the quality of edits newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa publish in the main namespace Decrease in the proportion of published edits that add new content and are reverted within 48 hours or have a high revision risk score

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[18]

A/B test[19], qualitative feedback (e.g. talk page discussions, false positive reporting)
2. Increase the likelihood that newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa will accompany the new content they are adding with a reference Increase in the percentage of published edits that add new content and include a reference

Increase in the percent of newcomers or Junior Contributors from SSA that publish at least one new content edit that includes a reference

Increase in the likelihood that someone includes a reference the next time they contribute new content.

A/B test[19]
3. Newcomers and Junior Contributors editing from within Sub-Saharan Africa will report feeling safe and confident making changes to Wikipedia Newcomers and Junior Contributors find the feedback and calls to action Edit Check presents them with to be:
  1. Helpful
  2. Supportive
  3. Motivating
Qualitative feedback via channels like:Community Calls, talk pages, event organizers, etc.
4. Experienced volunteers will independently audit and iterate upon Edit Check's default configurations to ensure Edit Check is causing newcomers and Junior Contributors to make productive edits.
5. Newcomers and Junior Contributors will be more aware of the need to add a reference when contributing new content because the visual editor will prompt them to do so in cases where they have not done so themselves. Increase in the percent of newcomers or Junior Contributors from SSA that publish at least one new content edit that includes a reference. A/B test[19]
Risks (Undesirable Outcomes)[20]
ID Outcome Data Evaluation Method(s)
1. Edit quality decreases Increase in the proportion of published edits that add new content and are reverted within 48 hours or have a high revision risk score

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[18]

A/B test[19], qualitative review and feedback
2. Edits become more difficult to patrol because unreliable citations are difficult to detect Significant increase in the percentage of new content edits new and developing volunteers make that include a reference

Comments/reports from experienced volunteers about the quality of edits Edit Check is activated within[18]

A/B test[19], qualitative review and feedback
3. Edit completion rate drastically decreases Proportion of edits that are started (event.action = init) that are successfully published (event.action = saveSuccess). A/B test[19]
4. Edit abandonment rate drastically increases Proportion of contributors that are presented Edit Check feedback and abandon their edits (indicated by event.action = abort and event.abort_type = abandon) A/B test[19]
5. Blocks increase Proportion of contributors blocked after publishing an edit where Edit Check was shown is significantly higher than edits in which Edit Check was not shown A/B test[19]
6. High false positive or false negative rates Proportion of new content edits published without a reference and without being shown Edit Check (indicator of false negative)

Proportion of contributors that dismiss adding a citation and select "I didn't add new information" or other indicator that the change they are making doesn't require a citation

A/B test[19], qualitative feedback received from volunteers about the accuracy and usefulness of Edit Check's current configuration [21]
7. Edit Check is too resource intensive to scale Efficiencies do not emerge over time making each new Edit Check as "expensive" to implement as the first one Qualitative assessment by the Edting team

Deployment sequence[edit]

Before volunteers and staff can consider whether a featured introduced as part of the Edit Check project is fit for being made available at all projects, we need evidence that confirms:

  1. Experienced volunteers are optimistic the check will be activated within edits when they would expect it to
  2. Members of the Editing Team are optimistic newcomers and Junior Contributors are finding the user experience intuitive and helpful
  3. Staff and volunteers agree the feature has net positive impact on projects and the volunteers who build and maintain them

To gather the evidence needed to confirm the above, the Editing Team will follow a deployment sequence made up of phases listed below.

Deployment Phases
Phase Objective Strategy Wikis
1. Learn whether the Edit Check heuristic is sufficiently accurate Staff and volunteers to review the edits a given check would become activated within to ensure the heuristic is sufficiently accurate before the feature is deployed All wikis
2. Learn whether newcomers find the user experience intuitively helpful Usability testing (on- and off-wiki), initial deployment to newcomers and Junior Contributors at a limited set of wikis Partner wikis
4. Learn what impact(s) the introduction of a given Edit Check feature has caused A/B testing, qualitative feedback through on- and off-wiki discussions and issue reporting A/B test wikis


Volunteers throughout the movement have a long history of working to:

  • Proactively educate and guide newcomers to make changes they feel proud of and changes that improve Wikipedia
  • Prevent people from publishing destructive changes, and
  • React to and moderate changes to Wikipedia articles.

The Editing Team and this project have been inspired by these efforts, some of which are listed below. If there is a project or resource you think we should be aware of, please add it here!

Initiative Description Initiator(s)
WikiScore A tool created to validate edits and count scores of participants in wikicontests.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector This tool attempts to detect copyright violations in articles. The Earwig
CiteUnseen A user script that adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, providing readers and editors a quick initial evaluation of citations at a glance. SuperHamster
Credibility bot Monitors and collects data on source usage within Wikipedia articles Harej
Salebot (fr.wiki) A counter-vandalism bot that uses regex to identify issues.
Edit intros (en.wiki) A message is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people.
Make edit notices more visible in Visual Editor How might we make it so people who are in the midst of an edit are likely to see and "internalize" the information that is currently presented within Edit Notices? User:Stjn
Internet Archive Reference Explorer Automatically detect source quality Ocaasi
Wish: Reference requirement for new article creation Require new article to include references User:Mega809
Edit Notices Enables individual volunteers and projects to display a custom notice above the edit form, depending on the page, namespace, or other circumstances.
Page notices
Maintenance templates
Extension:AbuseFilter Enables privileged users to set specific actions to be taken when actions by users, such as edits, match certain criteria.
Extension:Disambiguator Displays a notification in the 2006/2010 wikitext editor whenever one adds a link to a disambiguation page. Community Tech
ORES Halfak (WMF)
Suggested Edits
CiteHighlighter Highlights 1800 sources green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability. Novem Linguae
Checkwiki Helps clean up syntax and other errors in the source code of Wikipedia Stefan Kühn, Bgwhite
Edit Diff Tagging Showcases all the different tags that can be automatically determined (generally via basic heuristics) for a given Wikipedia edit diff. Isaac (WMF)
CivilityCheck A project to evaluate the civility in the comments of Wikipedia discussions in order to address the problem of abuse that leads to declining editorship within the Wiki community. Deus Nsenga, Baelul Haile, David Ihim, and Elan Houticolo-Retzler
BOTutor A bot that sends a message to people who attempt to publish an edit that triggers an existing set of rules ValeJappo
Gadget-autocomplete.js ערן
Text reactions A proposal that would make it possible for the editing interface to react to what the people enter in the editing area SD0001
Editwizard A step-by-step process for guiding newcomers to source the content they are attempting to add to Wikipedia articles Ankit18gupta, Enterprisey, Firefly, and SD0001
Headbomb/unreliable "The script breaks down links to various sources in different 'severities' of unreliability. In general, the script is kept in sync with WP:RSPSOURCES, {{Predatory open access source list}}, WP:NPPSG, WP:SPSLIST (not fully implemented yet) and WP:CITEWATCH, with some minor differences." Headbomb, SD0001
The Wikipedia Adventure Game based on the tech of Extension:GuidedTour that teaches basic wikitext markup and the rules about reliable sources and neutral point of view. Research into its effectiveness is described at meta:Research:Impact of The Wikipedia Adventure on new editor retention. Ocaasi
w:Help:Introduction The primary tutorial for new editors at English Wikipedia, covering both policies and technical how-to for VisualEditor and wiki markup. Most recently overhauled in late 2020 and more actively maintained than TWA. Sdkb, Evolution and evolvability, and others
A user script to highlight passages that lack references with a red background. Its main purpose is to help users quickly identify unreferenced passages, paragraphs, and sections in mainspace articles and drafts Phlsph7
Wish: Add notice to the visual editor that unsourced edits may be reverted A notice in the "Publish changes" dialogue of the visual editor that states that unsourced edits will be reverted User:Lectrician1
Wish: Warn when adding a url reference that matches the SpamBlacklist Warn when the url added as reference is registered in the SpamBlacklist, and thus prevent the warning from appearing when saving the page. User:DSan
Edit FIler #686 Edit Filter that is triggered when a new user possibly adding unreferenced material to BLP User:Rich Farmbrough
WikiLearn Platform for training
DannyS712/copyvio-check.js Automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar. DannyS712
XLinkBot A bot that warns people who have added an external link that is inappropriate in some way. Versageek, Beetstra

See also[edit]


  1. Editing team/Community Conversations#January 2023
  2. T327330
  3. Talk:Edit check#So glad to see!
  4. en:When should newcomers be prompted to add sources?
  5. T324364
  6. T323145
  7. T326856
  8. Superset: Wikipedia edits by interface and experience level
  9. Growth Team: IP editing Research Report
  10. 10.0 10.1 Community Insights 2021 Report
  11. Regional Quarterly Learning Sessions (June 2022, google document)
  12. Superset
  13. T327959
  14. T324730
  15. Where "viability" in this context refers to a feature being fit for being scaled to all projects as determined by the extent to which it has been proven to have a net positive impact on wikis and the volunteers who build and maintain them.
  16. Emphasis on "help" seeing as how all decisions will depend on a variety of data, all of which need to be weighted and considered to make informed decisions.
  17. T325838: Finish Edit Check measurement plan proposal
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 At every project where Edit Check is available, volunteers will be able to use the editcheck-reference-activated tag to review edits where the reference check is shown to people in the process of publishing an edit. Learn more about Edit Check tags.
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 [Analysis] Run an A/B test to evaluate Edit Check (references) impact
  20. T325851: Conduct pre-mortem for Edit Check project
  21. In addition to existing feedback channels (Phabricator, talk pages, etc.) there will be a minimum of two additional ways for people to share feedback about Edit Check: A) reporting edits that you think Edit Check should not have been shown within and B) declining to add a reference mid-edit by indicating you think Edit Check was shown when it shouldn't have been.