Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Testing/CorenSearchBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 20:
:Yeah, you're right – the closing line is probably overkill. I was still in newbie welcoming/praising mode :) [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The current versions are fine. I'm a little surprised at the edits to {{tl|welcomelaws}}, though – my impression when I was asked to open new talk pages with it is that it was intended to join the message with pointers to the requirements about copying. I can see why you think that's too heavy for a newbie, but then wouldn't it be simply better to use a generic well-tuned welcome template that's already available? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
::The foremost reason we rewrote the welcome like we did was because we realized that this particular welcome template is never delivered without an accompanying warning about copyvio. In that context, we'd like to test whether it leads to more action we want if we dramatically shorten the template, make it purely a general welcome, and point to the talk threads below it (few newbies understand how talk pages work). We are just now ending a similar welcome template test with XLinkBot, so between the two of them we should know clearly whether it is better to have short, general welcomes accompany warnings or if the current approach is more effective. <
:::That's a good point, and well made. It looks like you guys are just about ready for me to start using these; are there any reporting actions I could do that would help you get good metrics? Do you have a favourite distribution (alternating, strictly random, Gaussian), or weights you want assigned? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Steven and I spent the day making randomizers and [[:Template:Z|tracking templates]] for all these guys. These three are for newbies (preloaded with the current and test message):
Line 73:
:Thank you, Andy, those are excellent points. Will work them in. Let me know if you see anything else that looks off. [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
::Hey Andy. The latest revisions should all say things like "edit the article" etc. which are friendlier with people to screen readers etc. <
== Test started ==
Line 85:
:Looking at the example diff you linked to, it appears to me that the person who received that warning simply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_renewable_energy_certificate&diff=next&oldid=474183319 moved the content of an existing article] to reflect the correct spelling of the organization. He/she didn't actually write the content and probably had no idea it was a copyvio. Unless I'm reading that wrong, it looks like a false positive... which is a major factor to consider with the "experienced" warning. (Case in point: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&diff=423475000&oldid=422632778 Sue got warned by it once]!) That's why we were hesitant to include links to policy pages in these warnings. The new versions follow our assumption (from purely anecdotal evidence) that experienced editors who receive these warnings either accidentally forgot to attribute a source or were a false positive – in which case, giving them a link to a policy page would seem a bit condescending. Of course, we could be wrong, and maybe the people receiving these warnings ''do'' look like they need a refresher course on [[WP:Copy-paste]]. We'll definitely dig into the data after the test ends next week and see if that's the case. Watch our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing/Documentation|documentation page]] for the spreadsheet with all the results (should be ready next Monday), and feel free to poke around and help with qualitative coding if you have the time/inclination :) [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, a false positive is when there is no duplication. This is a different situation, and not uncommon. CorenSearchBot detected an unattributed split when it matched a new article to a mirror of an existing article. Not all experienced users know that our content here is not public ___domain any more than content found elsewhere on the web. It's still a copyright infringement if they don't follow the licensing requirements, as this person did not. [[Wikipedia:Copy-paste]] not only talks about copying from external sites, but also talks about copying content from one Wikipedia article to another. You'll notice that the person who received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pgan002&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2012&month=2 that specific caution] did nothing to repair the problem. If he had simply forgotten to fix the split, surely he would have done so? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Oh, lovely. Now the bot is broken again. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
| |||