Forum:Edit summary clarity - vote

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Edit summary clarity - vote

During the July Meeting of the Minds, there was significant discussion revolving around edit summaries, how they are and are not used, with focus largely on blank summaries and summaries with little actionable information actually provided. After the MotM, the discussion moved to forum, here. The following proposals were a result of the solutions presented during the meeting as well as feedback from the subsequent forum.

Try fixing problems

An important point raised by Dave, there does not appear to be a current emphasis or policy on fixing information which could be a solid if refined, but is instead only added poorly. Valid information, that suffers from a less than articulate user or one who is not well versed in the rest of wiki policy. Information which the article might otherwise be lacking, but is not presented in the appropriate manner. Speaking with Mara via talk page, he disagreed, stating "That sentiment is the opposite of what it should be. Less than stellar edits that aren't addressed as quickly as possible slip through the cracks and go unnoticed for hours to months, also while there are admins actively going through their personal projects on the wiki and not paying attention to the changelog." Rather than leaving this as a sentiment alone, the proposition is to adopt a modified version of Wikipedia's "Try to fix problems" editing policy as part of our own.

Fix it

Fix problems if you can, but preserve appropriate content and information. As long as the underlying information, if not the manner in which it has been added, is solid, it should be retained and corrected rather than being outright removed. Consider rewriting the edit to improve the quality or cleaning up formatting to meet Nukapedia standards. If the error cannot be corrected when found, rather than lose valuable information, flag the section for correction, so that it can be attended to and neither the information nor the incorrect formatting go unaddressed.

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

• Rephrasing or correcting grammar to improve readability.
• Fixing errors formatting or style.
• Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, should it not already be represented, or splitting the content to an entirely new article.
• Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself.
• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag.
• Adding appropriate cleanup tags where necessary, if you are unable to correct the error when it is discovered.
• Correcting any accompanying inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact.

If you are unsure about the content of the information, it may also be necessary to make mention of the any concerns or rationales behind tags in the edit summary or article talk page, so that it is clear what specifically needs to be sourced or what other issues should be addressed in order to improve the page. Vandalism should obviously be removed at face value.

Fix it! Poll

Poll finished on 12:00 pm September 16, 2021 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes, adopt the modified policy

1. Xporc (talk)
2. The Appalachian
3. Gilpo1 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
4. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Mandatory summary field

After speaking with a few of our tech savvy editors, one option to alleviate the completely blank summaries, is instituting a forced summary prior to an edit being made. While this does not guarantee a quality summary, it does at the very least mean there will be one. Something must be conveyed, both by the user making the original edited, and something done by the editor who is subsequently making edits as a result of the first user's actions.

If possible, a short explanation of what a "summary" should entail could accompany the existing blank space, just to stupid proof the mandatory field. "Please leave a brief description of changes made. This is a mandatory field. Summary:" as opposed to the "Summary:" only option we have currently. The note might be catering to the lowest common denominator, but better to have it than not.

Accompanying this would have to be one slight change to the user conduct guideline, and to address the broader conversation, a few other points would need to be added.

Current -

Use edit summaries: Edit summaries are there to explain your changes - use them as often as possible. It helps with getting everybody on the same page and prevents conflicts with other editors.

Update -

Use edit summaries: Edit summaries are there to explain your changes. It helps with getting everybody on the same page and prevents conflicts with other editors when an explanation of changes made is listed. A summary should not contain gibberish or nonsense. If an edit is likely to be contentious, the summary should not be pointlessly thin ("Bad", "Wrong", "Irrelevant", or other language which conveys no real useable information to any other editors visiting the page).

The key differences there would be the removal of "use them as often as possible" since they would be required, rather than optional. And the addition of "when an explanation of changes made is listed" to really drive home the function of summaries. The section "A summary should not contain gibberish or nonsense. If an edit is likely to be contentious, the summary should not be pointlessly thin ("Bad", "Wrong", "Irrelevant", or use other language which conveys no real useable information to any other editors visiting the page)." would be there to cover summaries such as "aoe;rogilerog" being slapdashedly typed out, as well as to address the original issue of staff actions which are so slim, it hurts rather than helps. "If an edit is likely to be contentious," is there to keep the requirements from being a crushing burden; there are many, many cases where a very brief summary can work. If someone is hammering out a couple dozen minor changes as part of maintenance, something like default summaries "/* Gallery */ " is perfectly fine, or if its an edit to a forum, such as this, where "voting" or "commenting" says everything that needs to be said.

Mandatory summaries - Poll

Poll finished on 12:00 pm September 16, 2021 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes, summaries should be required to save pages

1. The Appalachian
2. Gilpo1 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
3. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 17:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Results

Results for both votes will be shared here. Because of the related nature of both these votes, they were kept together as part of a single larger topic with two points to be addressed, rather than separated into different votes all representing the same topic. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)