編輯檢查

Edit check

帮助文档

部署狀態

社群對話

Check Ideas

聯絡

于Phabricator查看
任务T265163

维基媒体基金会的项目 編輯檢查 提供人們在編輯時有關維基百科方針的可操作回饋。 群組： Editing 开始： 2022-10-01 成员： David Chan, David Lynch, Esther Akinloose, Marielle Volz, Rummana Yasmeen, Nicolas Ayoub, Benoît Evellin, Bárbara Martínez 积压工作： #EditCheck 主导： Ed Sanders 管理： Peter Pelberg (產品經理), Valerie Puffet-Michel (工程經理)

編輯團隊正在對視覺化編輯器進行一系列改進，以幫助新志願者理解並遵循對維基百科專案進行建設性更改所需的一些方針與指引。

您可以在下文看到本專案的目標、歷史、以及維基媒體基金會產品部門優先考慮這項工作的原因。

參閱Editing team/Community Conversations 以了解有關此專案的預定會議。

點擊這裡來監視此頁面！

功能

「編輯檢查」功能包含以下幾項：

• 參考檢查
• 連結檢查與參考資料的可靠性
• 粘贴檢查

編輯團隊正在開發新的檢查功能：

• 語調檢查

編輯團隊負責處理的相關功能：

• 建議模式
• TextMatch

另請參閱：

• 我們使用的術語表
• 檢查的組態

目標

1. 來自撒哈拉以南非洲地區的新人和新手貢獻者在編輯並發佈那些令他們滿意且讓資深志願者認為有用的變更時，會感到足夠安全和自信。
2. 英語和法語維基百科的管理人員會注意到新手的編輯品質有所提升，並有動力去設定編輯檢查的呈現方針的方式。

狀態

以下列出2026的更新內容，其來自此頁面。 監視2026的更新.

编辑检查更新： 2026年 • 2025年 • 2024年 • 2023年

2026年4月10日

Suggestion Mode

The team is continuing to work on Suggestion Mode. The feature has been available as a Beta Feature globally since early March and at English Wikipedia since early February. Improvements to the tool since then include: Better detection of quotations for the ignoreQuotedContent setting; Better detection of existing references for the addReference suggestions; Addition of a toggle-button to hide suggestions temporarily - this will soon also save the 'hidden' state across future edit-sessions; Clearer and more accurate details in Special:EditChecks which shows the local configuration; Two new edit-tags added to published edits; A variety of bug-fixes and performance-improvements.

Some communities have started to use the textMatch feature to create custom local types of Suggestion.

We are now preparing for an A/B experiment with newcomers at ~20 Wikipedias, to measure what kind of impact the tool has on the percentage of constructive (un-reverted) edits by newcomers, as well as editor-retention and any changes in revert-rates and block rates.

Seeking feedback and assistance: Administrators at all Wikipedias can help to configure this tool so that it can recognize local standard heading-names, and so that it links to relevant local documentation pages from each type of suggestion (see Help:Suggestion mode#For administrators). All editors are strongly encouraged to share ideas and feedback on how the tool could be further improved.

2026年2月4日

Suggestion Mode

The Team is working on Suggestion Mode. The focus right now is clarifying what actions and instructions Suggestion Mode will present to experienced editors who use the Beta Feature for Suggestion Mode.

Seeking feedback: we are particularly interested in learning what kinds of additional Suggestions you want to create (whether you can locally create them with textmatch, or if you need developer-assistance for more complicated types of Suggestion), plus any adjustments you think would be needed in the text of the existing cards, plus what are the most suitable global links for each type of Suggestion (or local links if there is nothing globally suitable). Please let us know on the talk page.

• 
  "Add a citation" example on the article w:en:Mango
• 
  "Convert citation" example on the article w:en:Gooseberry

策略與措施

為了讓來自撒哈拉以南非洲的新手及初級貢獻者掌握相關知識與工具，使其能發布令自己引以為傲、且被資深志工認為有用的編輯內容，編輯團隊將在視覺編輯器 （桌面版與行動版 ）中推出新功能，該功能將檢查使用者嘗試進行的編輯內容，並提供具體的改善建議，協助其將編輯內容調整為符合既定的維基百科政策與準則。

編輯團隊即將推出的第一項「檢查」功能，將能偵測到使用者在「未」提供相應參考資料的情況下，試圖向現有條目添加「新」內容，並提示其補充參考資料。 此功能將搭配一系列配套功能，讓版主能夠設定新使用者與初級貢獻者 所見的使用者體驗，以確保軟體能引導他們採取符合專案政策與慣例的行動。

挑戰

視覺編輯器在維基百科的新手間日益普及，這使我們認為，這種編輯體驗在協助缺乏經驗的志工學習將修改內容發佈至維基百科所需的「技術技能」方面，已取得相當程度的成功。

問題在於，視覺編輯器和其他編輯介面並未讓使用者清楚了解他們應遵循的維基百科方針與指引。

以致於，缺乏經驗的志工所發佈的變更，往往違反既定的最佳實踐，並對缺乏經驗的志工、經驗豐富的志工，以及維基百科專案整體造成不良後果：

1. 缺乏經驗的志工 – 當他們來到維基，企圖進行的出於善意的修改遭到撤銷 （即：還原）、刪除、以及／或受到不公平的審視時，便會感到失望與沮喪。 這些糟糕的互動令人喪失動力，不僅將這些潛在的志工和社群成員趕走，也讓他們無法貢獻其獨有的專業知識。
2. 資深志工／管理員 —— 需要投入更多心力來撤銷低品質的編輯，並在經驗尚淺的志工的討論頁上留言，讓他們意識到自己可能在不知情的情況下違反了哪些政策和／或指引。 若必須不斷指導缺乏經驗的志工並屢屢撤銷他們的修改，可能會導致經驗豐富的志工對缺乏經驗的志工產生懷疑，並對他們失去耐心。
3. 維基百科計畫 —— 致力於擴大並多元化志工群體，並縮小維基媒體維基網站中存在的知識差距。

本計畫旨在透過以下方式應對上述挑戰：

1. 在經驗尚淺的志工正使用視覺編輯器進行編輯的關鍵時刻，向他們提供關於維基百科政策相關且具實用性的回饋。
2. 賦予版主一項新功能，使其能夠指定在缺乏經驗的志工進行編輯時所顯示的回饋內容

改變理論

本專案基於此一理念：當經驗尚淺的志工正準備對維基百科進行編輯時，若能在關鍵時刻提供相關指引，並賦予他們應用這些指引所需的知識與工具，他們便能做出令自己引以為傲、且獲得資深志工認可的編輯成果。

從長遠來看，編輯團隊認為，新加入的使用者——尤其是那些過去曾被既有的權力結構所排擠並因此受到傷害的人——若能準確判斷自己試圖進行的編輯是否符合維基百科現有的政策、準則及／或文化慣例，便會感到安心，並更有動力去編輯維基百科。

更廣泛而言，編輯團隊認為，若要邁向一個未來——讓維基的政策與文化規範（最終也包括內容）能反映這些專案所服務對象的多元經驗——我們首先必須確保，現行的規範與標準在人們進行編輯時，能夠被清楚理解並付諸實踐。 如此一來，志工便能針對那些未能發揮預期效果的規範與標準，建立共同的認知，並據此決定是否需要對其進行調整，以及若需調整，哪些變更是值得採行的。

主要的受众

編輯團隊的工作重點是滿足以下人們的需求：

1. 經驗： 正在學習為維基百科做出貢獻的基礎知識
   • 在這個專案的背景下，仍在「學習基礎知識」的人是指對一個或多個維基百科中累積編輯少於100次的人。這包括第一次編輯維基百科的人。
2. 所在地： 生活在撒哈拉以南非洲地區
3. 專案： 為英語和法語維基百科做出貢獻
4. 動機： 尋求填補他們在維基百科中注意到的空白

以上所列的四個重點標準是以下的產物：

• 來自非洲或亞洲的新手是其他地方的兩倍。
• 該運動在努力留住歐洲和北美洲以外的編輯者。
• 來自撒哈拉以南非洲地區的人在運動中的代表性不足：儘管來自撒哈拉以南非洲地區的人佔全球人口的15%和全球網路人口的7%，但僅佔活躍獨立編輯者的1%。
• 撒哈拉以南非洲地區有80%的註冊編輯者為英語或法語維基百科做出貢獻。

参见：​社群對話

設計

參考檢測

To start, the Editing Team is pursuing an approach with Edit Check that minimizes the likelihood of false positives and is implemented in ways that empower volunteers, on a per-project basis, to evolve the heuristic 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.

其他應用

参见：​Edit check/Ideas

可配置性

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

落實上述內容的工作正在phab:T327959中進行。

使用者體驗

行動版

• 
  The initial version of the mobile Edit Check experience that will prompt people to decide whether they want to add a reference or not.
• 
  Positive feedback people will receive when they elect to add a reference as a result of Edit Check inviting them to do so.
• 
  A screen that invites people who choose not to add a reference to share why.
• 
  An overview of the various screens within the mobile Edit Check 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.

桌面版

桌面版的使用者體驗仍在設計當中。 请参阅T329579。

Experiments

Multi-Check (References) A/B Test

To learn whether the Multi-Check was effective at causing, newcomers to publish new content edits that include references while lowering the likelihood those edits would be reverted, we ran an A/B test with 12 Wikipedias.

Below you can read more about what this experiment demonstrated, what the Editing Team is planning in response, and more details about the test's design.

Conclusion and next steps

Reference likelihood based on number of Reference Checks shown

Multi-Check caused statistically significant increases in the proportion of edits that include a reference and are not reverted within 48 hours without causing undesirable changes in edit completion or other forms of disruption (e.g. blocks).

In response, Multi-Check was deployed to all wikis where Reference Check is currently available on June 25, 2025.

Findings

• Proportion of new content edits with a reference
  • Users are more likely to include at least one reference with their new content edits when multi-check (references) is available.
    • Edits that were shown multiple Reference Checks in a session are 1.3 times more likely to include at least one new reference in the final published edit compared to sessions shown a single Reference Check.
• Revert Rate
  • Overall, we did not identify any significant changes in new content edit revert rate between the control and test group.
  • However, there was a -34.7% decrease in revert rate when directly comparing edits presented multiple checks compared to edits presented a single reference check
• Proportion of users that publish at least one new content edit with a reference
  • Overall, there was a 5.5% increase in the proportion of distinct users who published a new content edit with a reference when multi-check was available.
• Guardrails
  • There were no decreases in edit completion rate for up to 5 reference checks being presented in a single session (which accounts for the majority of multi-check edits).
  • We also did not identify any increases in revert rate at any number of reference checks presented.

Leading Indicators (T388731)

• New(er) volunteers are encountering Multi-Check
  • In the test group, multiple reference checks were shown within a single editing session at 19% of all published new content VE edits (549 edits) by unregistered users and users with 100 or fewer edits.
  • For edits shown multiple checks, the majority of edits (73%) were shown between 2 to 5 Reference Checks.
• People shown multiple Reference Checks w/in an edit go on to publish at a relatively high rate
  • The edit completion rate for sessions that were shown multiple checks within a session was 76.1% compared to 75% for sessions shown only one check, indicating that multiple checks are not causing significant disruption or confusion to the editors.
• Likelihood to include a reference
  • Sessions shown multiple checks are more likely to include at least one new reference in the final published edit compared to sessions shown just a single check.
  • In the test group, 52.5% of all published edits shown multiple Reference checks included at least one new reference compared to 39.7% of edits that were shown a single check.
• Disruption (revert and block rates)
  • In the test group, the revert rate of new content edits shown multiple Reference Checks (17%) is currently lower compared to sessions shown a single Reference Check (26%).
  • No significant changes in the proportion of users blocked after being shown multiple Reference Checks compared to a single Reference Check.

Multi-Check Phase 1 Impact Analysis

Multi-Check (Phase 1)

In December 2024, we released a new design for the Edit Check desktop experience. This change shifted Edit Checks from appearing within articles to appearing alongside them, in a new "siderail."

To decide how – if at all – this change impacted volunteer disruption and edit quality, we compared analyzed several key metrics shifted before and after this change.

Findings

• The revert rate of new content edits where Reference Check was activated decreased by 15.7%.
  • 20.4% (pre) →  17.2% (post).
• The proportion of new content edits that included a reference following the change increased 8%.
  • 34.8% (pre) → 37.9% (post)
• Excluding reverted edits, there was 3.2% increase [2 percentage points] in edit completion rate.
  • 68% of edits where Reference Check was presented were successfully saved and not reverted following the change in the Edit Check UX.
• The rate at which people declined to add a reference when Edit Check prompted them decreased 4.7%.

Conclusion(s)

The findings above suggest this design change has been net positive. As a result, we will continue depending on this new design paradigm as we introduce new types of Edit Checks and moments within the editing workflow when they are presented.

Reference Check A/B Test

To learn whether the Reference Edit Check is effective at causing newcomers to make edits they intended and experienced volunteers value , we conducted an A/B test with 15 Wikipedias.

Below you can read more about what this experiment demonstrated, what the Editing Team is planning in response, and more details about the test's design.

Conclusion and next step(s)

Reference Check caused an increase in the quality of edits newcomers publish and did not cause any significant disruption.

This combination is leading the Editing team to be confident that offering Reference Check as a default-on feature would have a net positive impact on all wikis and the people who contribute to them.

You can read the full A/B test report here.

Findings

There was 2x increase in the proportion of new content edits by newcomers, Junior contributors, and unregistered users that included a reference when Reference Check was shown to eligible edits.

New content edits *with* a reference

People shown the Reference Check are 2.2 times more likely to publish a new content edit that includes a reference and is constructive (not reverted within 48 hours).

• Increases were observed across all reviewed user types, wikis, and platforms.

• The highest observed increase was on mobile where contributors are 4.2 times more likely to publish a constructive new content edit with a reference when Reference Check was shown to eligible edits.

Revert rate

• New content edit revert rate decreased by 8.6% if Reference Check was available.
  • New content edits by contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa are 53% less likely to be reverted when Reference Check is shown to eligible edits.

We observed increases on both desktop and mobile. On mobile, users are 4.2 times more likely to include a reference with their new content when the Reference Check is shown to eligible edits.

While some non-constructive new content edits with a reference were introduced by this feature (5 percentage point increase), there was a higher proportion of constructive new content edits with a reference added (23.4 percentage point increase). As a result, we observed an overall increase in the quality of new content edits.

There was a -8.6% decrease in the revert rate of all new content edits comparing edits where Reference Check was shown in the test group to edits that were eligible but not shown Reference Check in the control group.

Constructive Retention Rate

• Contributors that are shown Reference Check and successfully save a non-reverted edit are 16 percent more likely to return to make a non-reverted edit in their second month (31-60 days after).
  • This increase was primarily observed for desktop edits. There was a non-statistically significant difference observed on mobile.

Guardrails

Edit Completion Rate

• We observed no drastic decreases in edit completion rate from intent to save (where Reference Check is shown) to save success overall or by wiki.
• Overall, there was a 10% decrease in edit completion rate for edits where Reference Check was shown.
  • There was a higher observed decrease in edit completion rate on mobile compared to desktop. On mobile, edit completion rate decreased by -24.3% while on desktop it decreased by -3.1%.

Block Rate

• There were decreases or no changes in the rate of users blocked after after being shown Reference Check and publishing an edit compared to users in the control group.

False Negative Rate

• There was a low false negative rate. Only 1.8% of all published new content edits in the test group did not include a new reference and were not shown Reference Check.

False Positive Rate

• 6.6% of contributors dismissed adding a citation because they indicated the new content being added does not need a reference. This was the least selected decline option overall.

Test design

11 Wikipedias participated in the test. At each wiki, 50% of users were randomly assigned to a test group and 50% were assigned to a control group.

Users in the test group were shown the Reference Check notice prompting them to decide whether the new content they were adding need a reference (if they had not already added one themselves).

User in the control group were shown the default editing experience, even if they did not accompany the new content they were adding with a reference.

Timing

This analysis was completed on 16 April 2024 and analyzed engagement data at the 11 participating wikis from 18 February 2024 through 4 April 2024.

Evaluating impact

The viability 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 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

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	A/B test, 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
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: Helpful Supportive 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

Risks (Undesirable Outcomes)

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	A/B test, 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	A/B test, 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
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
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
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, qualitative feedback received from volunteers about the accuracy and usefulness of Edit Check's current configuration
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 process

Please see Deployment status#Deployment process .

背景

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!

倡議	說明	主導人
Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Tools	Constructive uses of LLMs and AI to support editors.	User:Chaotic_Enby
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:ProVe	A tool that provides information about the quality of the references of Wikidata items, based on techniques such as large language models, triple verbalisation, and semantic similairty
User:SodiumJS/copying-check.js	Client-side copying detector	User:Sohom Datta
Wish: Apply AI to article improvement suggestions on the homepage	"A much better AI system than the previous one that recommends articles for improvement would help editors going through this, including new and veteran users."	User:Leonard609
Wikimedia-l: Mopping with the tap open	A discussion wherein Romaine describes a pattern of people who are new adding information to Wikipedia without citing source(s).	nl:Gebruiker:Romaine
Model: meta:Eno-Prompt	A project to train a fine-tuned open-source LLM (large language model) that will detect disinformation based on linguistic analysis.
Paper: Counter-Misinformation Dynamics: The Case of Wikipedia Editing Communities during the 2024 US Presidential Elections	Recommendations to make Wikipedia more resilient to misinformation. Includes recommendations relevant to Edit Check.
Wish: Make editnotices display as pop-ups	Make people aware when they are at risk of changing an article volunteers consider to be about a contentious topic	User:Theleekycauldron
Corrector ortográfico, Helferlein/Rechtschreibprüfung, ויקיפדיה:סקריפטים/בודק איות, Revisor_ortográfico	A tool that checks pages loaded in the browser against a list of common spelling errors.	Poco_a_poco, Benutzer:APPER, :משתמש:ערן, Elisardojm
Error Finder	A tool to find common errors in Persian texts	Reza1615
Wish: Warn when large amount of content has been copy-pasted	A wish to warn people who are pasting text into Wikipedia and to annotate edits in which this occurs so that patroller can consider this as they are reviewing edits/looking for edits to review.	Matěj_Suchánek
fr:Projet:Articles sans sources (along with 3 other wikiprojects)	A WikiProject intended to add sources to articles that need them
CopyPatrol	Tool that allows you to see recent Wikipedia edits that are flagged as possible copyright violations	Community Tech Team
paper: Automatically Neutralizing Subjective Bias in Text	Method for automatically bringing inappropriately subjective text into a neutral point of view ("neutralizing" biased text).	Reid Pryzant, Richard Diehl Martinez, Nathan Dass, Sadao Kurohashi, Dan Jurafsky, Diyi Yang
Wikipedia:Citation watchlist	User script that adds visual indicators to watchlist and recent changes entries when unreliable sources are added to articles.	Harej, Ocaasi
Internet Archive Reference Explorer	Explore references included in Wikipedia articles via a range of criteria
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 (French Wikipedia)	A counter-vandalism bot that uses regex to identify issues.
Edit intros (English Wikipedia)	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
編輯提示	Enables individual volunteers and projects to display a custom notice above the edit form, depending on the page, namespace, or other circumstances.
頁面提示
維護模板
Extension:AbuseFilter（滥用过滤器）	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)
建議編輯
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
編輯差異標記	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 m: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
User:Phlsph7/ HighlightUnreferencedPassages	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

參見

• Help:编辑检查
• 翻譯該擴充功能