Edit check - MediaWiki

Edit check - MediaWiki
Jump to content
From mediawiki.org
Translate this page
Languages:
Bahasa Indonesia
Hausa
Kadazandusun
Tagalog
Tiếng Việt
italiano
polski
português
português do Brasil
čeština
русский
українська
العربية
فارسی
ไทย
中文
Edit check
Documentation
Deployment status
Community Conversations
Check Ideas
Contact
Tracked in
Phabricator
Task T265163
Wikimedia Foundation projects
Edit check
Offer people actionable feedback about Wikipedia policies while they are editing.
Group:
Editing
Start:
2022-10-01
Team members:
David Chan
David Lynch
Esther Akinloose
Marielle Volz
Rummana Yasmeen
Nicolas Ayoub
Benoît Evellin
Bárbara Martínez
Backlog:
#EditCheck
Lead:
Ed Sanders
Management:
Peter Pelberg
(product),
Valerie Puffet-Michel
(engineering)
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.
Watch this page!
Features
edit
Several features are available within Edit Check:
Reference check
Multi-check
Link check and Reference reliability
Paste Check
The Editing team works on new Checks:
Tone check
The Editing team works on the related features:
Suggestion Mode
See also:
Glossary of the terms we use
Checks' configuration
Objectives
edit
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.
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.
Status
edit
Updates for 2026 are listed below,
from this page
Watch 2026 updates
Edit check updates:
2026
2025
2024
2023
10 April 2026
edit
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.
4 February 2026
edit
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
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.
Challenges
edit
The visual editor's growing popularity among people who are new to editing Wikipedia
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Location:
Living in Sub-Saharan Africa
Projects:
Contributing to the English and French Wikipedias
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.
The movement struggles to retain editors who live outside Europe and North America.
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.
80% of registered editors in Sub-Saharan Africa contribute to English or French Wikipedia.
See also:
community conversations
Design
edit
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
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:
A minimum of one new paragraph of text is added to the article someone is editing
The "new paragraph(s) of text" someone has added does NOT include a reference
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:
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
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
See also:
Edit check/Ideas
Configurability
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
Mobile
edit
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.
Desktop
edit
Design for the desktop user experience is still underway.
See
T329579
Experiments
edit
Multi-Check (References) A/B Test
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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
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
edit
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
edit
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
edit
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:
Impacts
the features introduced as part of the Edit Check are intended to cause and avert
Data
we will use to
help
10
determine the extent to which a feature has/has not
caused
a particular impact
Evaluation methods
we will use to gather the data necessary to determine the impact of a given feature
Desirable Outcomes
11
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
12
A/B test
13
, 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
13
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
13
Risks (Undesirable Outcomes)
14
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
12
A/B test
13
, 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
12
A/B test
13
, 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
13
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
13
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
13
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
13
, qualitative feedback received from volunteers about the accuracy and usefulness of Edit Check's current configuration
15
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
edit
Please see
Deployment status#Deployment process
Background
edit
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)
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
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
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
See also
edit
Help:Edit check
Translate this extension
References
edit
Superset: Wikipedia edits by interface and experience level
Growth Team: IP editing Research Report
The Tyranny of Structurelessness
4.0
4.1
Community Insights 2021 Report
Regional Quarterly Learning Sessions (June 2022, google document)
Superset
T327959
T324730
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.
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.
T325838
- Finish Edit Check measurement plan proposal
12.0
12.1
12.2
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
13.0
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.8
[Analysis] Run an A/B test to evaluate Edit Check (references) impact
T325851
- Conduct pre-mortem for Edit Check project
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.
Retrieved from "
Category
WMF Projects
Hidden categories:
WMF Projects 2022q4
WMF Projects 2023q1
WMF Projects 2023q2
WMF Projects 2023q3
WMF Projects 2023q4
WMF Projects 2024q1
WMF Projects 2024q2
WMF Projects 2024q3
WMF Projects 2024q4
WMF Projects 2025q1
WMF Projects 2025q2
WMF Projects 2025q3
WMF Projects 2025q4
WMF Projects 2026q1
WMF Projects 2026q2
Edit check
Add topic