Wikidata talk:Mismatched reference notification input

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In order to understand your needs and workflows better, we would love to get your feedback on this page. Feel free to create a new section to answer the following questions. You can also leave comments in the “other discussions” section.

Questions[edit]

  • (1) While testing the feature, did you notice problems or things that are hard to understand?
  • (2) In what part of your daily work on Wikidata would you imagine this feature being useful?

While creating that feature we thought of making it persistent, which means that the notification would stay on the Item page, and other editors would be able to see it, as well as you would see the notifications on statements where other people edited a value without changing the reference.

  • (3) Do you think this would be useful in your workflows and if yes, how?
  • (4) Do you see any problems that could occur?
  • (5) Which additional features would you need in order to improve the matching between values and references on Wikidata?

Salgo60[edit]

  • (1) No problem so far
  • (2) its easy missing things when updating data manually so this is excellent
  • (3) yes I use the gadget DuplicateReferences a lot so question is how they work together
  • (4) not now
  • (5) I recommend listen to Denny Vrandečić link he has a lot of visions

- Salgo60 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ainali (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

  • (1) No.
  • (2) Not making involuntary mistakes.
  • (3) Yes, for catching mistakes.
  • (4) That I miss the notification and leave the item without correcting a mistake I made.
  • (5) I would suggest giving a popup dialogue before publishing: "You changed a value, but the reference remained the same. Do you want to publish?" to help me from not doing the mistake in the first place.

ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

  • (1) No problem. However, I was expecting to see the popup notification immediately, rather than the (!) sign of an issue that you then have to click to see the problem. I think it would be better to make the notification more in-your-face, requiring an additional click to dismiss it. (just at the point in time of the edit, it can hide like a regular warning later if it is persistent at all).
  • (2) One doesn't always notice that there is a reference on a value, so this is a useful notification to check that your change conforms with the existing reference, or if not to change the reference or add a new one - or not make any change if your proposed change is in error. A common example for me is employer statements on items for scientists - these often are referenced to ORCID, so it is good to be slightly nudged to confirm that whatever you are changing conforms to that reference - or to look into the issue further if not!
  • (3) I assume this is asking about persistence of the warning. It would be nice if it could be dismissed only by autoconfirmed editors, so that changes made with no reference update by IP or new users would stand out more clearly; I think that would be helpful in patrolling. In general having a persistent warning is useful here to indicate somebody should confirm the value.
  • (4) It seems like the warning is not there if there is ANY change to the references - for example adding a new reference, or modifying just one of several existing references. The warning is also not there if you add an additional value for a property that already has a referenced value. This is all probably fine, but it may make it a little less useful for patrolling if vandals find out how easy it is to avoid generating the warning...
  • (5) The popup dialogue suggested above before publishing might be helpful; alternatively maybe what I suggested above, a popup warning after publishing. But this would be fine to use as it is now. If it is to be persistent then there definitely needs to be a way to dismiss the warning ("I've checked the reference and confirmed the new value" or something...)

Jheald (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

  • (5) A link to the diff might be useful, if/when the warning is made persistent (which I think would be valuable, at the 'suggestion' level of warning). Jheald (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Although, with due respect to User:Moebeus below, the team probably are correct to be introducing this in baby steps first, at least initially. Subtle (ie not overtly obvious) modification/vandalisation of referenced content is indeed something that it would be good to move on, as soon as we can. But there are also legitimate changes that can create false positives -- eg if the object item of a statement is merged, or an approximate date is re-coded, or additional information is added from the source by way of qualifiers. So trying to get a more comprehensive understanding of these before deeper roll-out may make some sense. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Moebeus (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

  • (1) Nope, dead easy.
  • (2) Everyday, all the time.
  • (3) 100% useful. As a best-practise-reminder to always check/update references.
  • (4) Nothing that comes to mind.
  • (5) This is a great step in the right direction, very nicely done. My only comments are directly parroting Jheald : It would be even better if made persistent with a link to diff, with an option to dismiss tied to some kind a "patrol-action". Moebeus (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

  • Since when does test.wikidata have an "Automatic" option for adding a reference? This is really nice! ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Hehe that is the integration of Citoid. It's using the same backend that supports easier referencing on Wikipedia. It's unfortunately not quite ready yet for handling Wikidata. We're working on it with Marielle from the WMF. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...