Discussions/Submissions/Intelligent Edit-Review and Curation Tools

Intelligent Edit-Review and Curation Tools

Title: Intelligent Edit-Review and Curation Tools

Proposed by: Nick Wilson, Benoît Evellin, Joe Matazzoni
Description: Edit and page review are crucial to the integrity of our projects. Yet the tools that exist to help reviewers with this task can be difficult to master, are unevenly developed, and are often available only on the largest wikis. Intelligent workload triage is largely missing, and duplication of effort is a common problem. By improving back-end support for these tools and using ORES's AI edit-scoring technology, we can create systems that help us focus our efforts where they’ll do the most good. How can we best improve the various curation tools and enable customizing them by local communities?

Purpose: To discuss what tools we currently use for edit-review, and what else we need or want. Where are the bottle-necks? What are the great features at specific wikis, or in specific tools, that should be expanded/globalized? How else can we improve the experience, for both edit-reviewers, and the editors whose edits are being reviewed?

Targeted participants: People involved with anti-vandalism, new-page review, edit review, supporting new users, and related activities. Anyone who has helped develop or maintain tools for these purposes. People from diverse communities, including those who enjoy powerful curation tools now, and those who don't have such tools but want them.

Preparatory reading, for those who are interested

A description of the ORES edit-scoring technology.
Fascinating analysis of the current state of anti-vandalism patrolling, by Krinkle.
An excellent paper on the difficulties and possible solutions for customizing page curation tools for local wikis, by Oliver Keyes.

Questions and Comments 36

Hi Nick, Benoît, andJoe, thank you for your proposal, which I find very interesting. Do you already know of a few people you'd be interested to talk to and who will attend Wikimania? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gnom, this discussion will be relevant to all editors who regularly use a watchlist, or use recentchanges, or use the existing edit-triage tools (New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, Huggle, Snuggle, STiki, various other scripts and tools that use ORES, etc), including anyone who attended wm2015:Submissions/Wikipedia's health: A socio-technical overview. -- Does that help? I checked Attendees for specific usernames but it's not very complete at the moment. Also, there is some overlap with the proposal above at #New Wikipedia articles: Controlling the quality and relevance, but that is focusing on one specific tool, whereas we aim to discuss the entire ecosystem of edit-review tools. HTH! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Quiddity (WMF): et al: Thanks for the proposal. The general idea behind this strikes me as relevant. I'm a little struggling with the specifics though. You mention you want to 'meet' a group of people, which seems to me more likely to happen at the hackathon given their characteristics. Also the purpose is not very well defined. I could imagine reshaping this to become very promising though - if we focus it more on gathering experiences from different communities (what approaches exist, what approaches would exist if the right tools existed, what are the bottle necks) as most communities seem to struggle with the manpower needed to run the expensive quality control processes. This will only become harder if/when the work to get more new editors is successful. So a very valuable idea, but I would suggest to pull it out of the technical realm, and into the 'what do you do, and what do you need' area. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Effeietsanders: How you describe it is exactly the intent. (Similar to the "Empowering the power users" discussion group that you facilitated in Mexico). I'll attempt a rewrite next, to make that clearer! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Quiddity (WMF): (and Trizek (WMF), JMatazzoni (WMF)) Thanks again for the submission. We used it as the basis for this discussion with some rephrasing: Edit review & curation tools: what do you use, and what do you need. I hope you like it this way! We'll have a further discussion on the details of facilitation, but I hope you'll be actively present! Effeietsanders (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]