Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features

Suggested edits

Could we add "expand lead" to the "suggested edits" homepage widget? I just tagged an article with this and it occurred to me that this is a kind of edit that is extremely useful, has satisfying results for a new editor, and really isn't very difficult - you just need to read what the article says and summarize it, no outside research required. It seems appropriate for "medium" imo. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all that would be needed to do this would be to add {{Expand lead}} to the list of templates in the "Expand" task in Special:EditGrowthConfig. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though it would be even better if a new task was created altogether, since "expand" is down as "hard". imo this is a much easier task than, say, finding references. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I hadn't noticed that because I got sidetracked with the thing I raised in the thread below. Folly Mox (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Not always so simple (things on Wikipedia never are...) but definitely an appropriate task for newcomers on the easier side. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Usefulness of "Add links" task?

According to Special:NewcomerTasksInfo, most task types have tens of thousands of articles available for improvement based on the tagging: copyedit, expand, and update each have around 30,000 articles; references has almost 160,000.

In contrast, the links task has five eligible articles. A single person could knock out the entire task for the entire project in half an hour or so. This suggests to me that the links task is not a good match for en.wp, and we should consider disabling it and optionally replacing it. Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Folly Mox, and thank you for bringing this topic to the table!

At the moment, Add a link is based on templates. If an article has a template that says "add more links", then it is suggested. As you discovered, it is not optimal.

We have a solution: we can change that task to switch from template-based suggested articles to machine-suggested links.

We have a step-by-step explaining how that feature works. You can also test it at test.wikipedia.org (but don't expect great suggestions though).

With this system, users are suggested links to add. They can add them, reject them or skip. The idea is to show users that they can edit. With the prediction models we have to suggest links, the number of suggested links is almost endless. We also have boundaries to limit the number of added links and the number of article one user can edit each day.

That version of Add a link was tested at our pilot wikis, and, base don their feedback, some improvements were made. Since then, that new version of Add a link has been deployed to ~85% of Wikipedias and replaces the one you have at English Wikipedia. We are deploying at the remaining ones; English Wikipedia would be the last one to get it, but it can happen sooner if needed.

Best, Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Trizek (WMF), thanks for that link! I remember reading that with some interest awhile ago. I understand why en.wp would be the last project to enable it as well.

You're probably aware of our style guideline MOS:OL, which advises against linking common terms. It's entirely unintuitive to new editors, who come here with the wholly reasonable expectation that articles link to one another as a core part of the wiki experience. I participated in a conversation recently with a newer editor confused about why their link to Tamil Nadu kept getting reverted.

MOS:OL is well enforced, typically by User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms and its associated AWB module, but also manually. I think most of us are aware enough of WP:BITE to understand that reverting links to common terms added by low-edit accounts is not overall beneficial to the project, but it would be interesting to see what percentage of the AI suggested links were reverted outside the 48 hour window imposed by yall's methodology.

At any rate, what I'm saying is that English Wikipedia's internal link culture is weird and maybe a significant outlier, in that we're more concerned with removing links than adding them. For practical purposes, I don't think enabling this feature would have a different effect on activation and retention than it has on other projects, but there might be more community pushback than anticipated. User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js seems to govern the broadest application of our MOS in this arena; if it could be parsed into an exclusion list then community concerns might be allayed.

English Wikipedia is by no means fully internally connected. Without researching it, I'd guess that newer articles (age less than one year) are less well connected than they should be, particularly when they exist in another language project already.

I'm not the biggest fan of MOS:OL, because why shouldn't we just link to articles we have, keeping in mind MOS:SEAOFBLUE? I've also cleaned up after the indicated script on a few articles where its insensitivity to context caused silly actions, like when it removed every link to People's Republic of China from History of China, or removed Finland from Finnish alcohol culture. But it has consensus and it's how things are here. Apologies if you already knew all this. Folly Mox (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the details, @Folly Mox. I was already aware of the outlines, but your detailed summary will help us preparing a potential deployment. Your link to Ohconfucius' list of terms will be of great help!

Add a link doesn't suggest random links. We have a model that ponders how many links can be included compared to the article length and to the number of already existing links (to avoid that sea-of-blue effect). It also excludes sections where links aren't needed (a list that can be edited by the community) and, of course, it doesn't create links to disambiguation pages. We can improve that model as we did for the wikis where we deployed Add a link previously.

Added links are less likely to be reverted, as you noticed; most reverts are due to the few users who don't read (or understand) instructions and then add nonsense links. It happens for any tool, no matter which instructions you put in from of users — humans are humans — and the only solution there is to explain again. The problem with these users is that they lead communities to highlight these bad edits, quite often with no comparison of all the benefits, and to blame the tool.

The revert rate outside of the 48 hours was so low that we haven't considered it.

Thank you again, Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Mentorship change notifications

Mentees get a notification whenever their mentor is changed (e.g. when the previous mentor is removed after being blocked, becoming inactive, etc.). T336875 reduced the number of users getting these notifications somewhat, but I wonder whether we shouldn't consider going further. I just heard today from a new user who was confused about the notification he had automatically received after I removed his (blocked) mentor, and I'm sure there are many equally confused brand-new users we'll never hear from. Certainly there's some small benefit to letting users know about a change in mentor, but don't you think it's outweighed by the risk of confusion, frustration with unwanted notifications, etc.? Maybe the notifications could be limited to manual changes rather than the mass reassignments I do at Special:ManageMentors? Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @Extraordinary Writ.

We try to balance the different point of view. I understand that getting a notification can cause confusion to some newcomers. I also understand the case where newcomers are happy to know that the mentor they already interacted with is no longer around.

We plan to improve the message text and tone, as the information in the current one is sometimes in the wrong order of importance (T327493 T345635). We hope to reduce confusion there.

We also considered to have newcomers opting-in for these notifications, but checking on parameters is not something most newcomers do naturally.

I will document your idea of only notifying newcomers when a manual reassignment is performed, but I'd like to know your opinion regarding the options we have in hand first. :)

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think if newcomers are confused about having an initial mentor, and why they are assigned, then the messaging about this should be improved, and perhaps repeated when a mentor is changed. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to any suggestion regarding how the message is written! :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide examples/pointers to the messages (preferably the entire message after having been assembled from its components) and context on when they are sent? It would be appreciated. isaacl (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl the notification says $USERNAME is your new mentor. Reason:$REASON (from these). The "reason" is whatever is in the log (examples here and here). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. Is this message sent both when the mentor is initialy assigned and if it is changed? Is it a talk page message? If there is no additional message linking to more information about the mentorship program or the user's home page, then I can see why there is confusion. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl it is an echo notification, not a talk page message. (I just tested it by changing the mentor/mentee relationship on one of my test accounts here). This is just when there is a relationship change, I'm not sure what is (or isn't) sent during initial load. It also says "Say hi to your new mentor" with a link to the new mentor's talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #28

Welcome to the twenty-eighth newsletter from the Growth team! Help with translations

Community Configuration, concept A: Accordion style

Community Configuration, concept B: Dashboard style

Community configuration 2.0

• Community Configuration 2.0 is a feature that will enable Wikimedia communities to easily customize and configure features to meet their unique needs. This approach provides non-technical moderators with more independence and control over enabling/disabling and customizing features for their communities.
• Technical approach and associated tasks are detailed in this Epic task on Phabricator.
• Initial designs are drafted for two different approaches (see images). We will soon demo interactive prototypes to interested admins, stewards, and experienced editors (T346109). Please let us know if you have feedback on the design approach, or want to participate in prototype testing.

IP Masking

• The Growth team has been working on several updates to ensure Growth maintained features will be compatible with future IP Masking changes. This work has included code changes to: Recent Changes (T343322), Echo notifications (T333531), the Thanks extension (T345679) and Mentorship (T341390).
• Before December, the Growth team will initiate community discussions with the goal of migrating communities from Flow to DiscussionTools. This move aims to minimize the necessity for additional engineering work to make Flow compatible with IP Masking. (T346108)

Mentorship

• We assembled some resources for mentors at Mediawiki wiki. This resource page is translatable and will be linked from the mentor dashboard.
• We are working to resolve a bug related to mentors properly returning after being marked as "Away". (T347024)
• Half of newcomers at English Wikipedia get a mentor assigned to them. To ensure every newcomer receives mentorship, we need additional volunteer mentors at English Wikipedia to achieve a 100% coverage rate. We also encourage experienced users from other wikis to help newcomers at their own community.

Scaling Growth features

• We continue the deployment of the structured task "add a link" to all Wikipedias. We plan to scale the task to all Wikipedias that have link suggestions available by the end of 2023.
• We plan to scale the new Impact Module to all Wikipedias soon, but first we are investigating a bug with the job that refreshes the Impact Module data. (T344428)
• At some wikis, newcomers have access to the "add an image" structured task. This task suggests images that may be relevant to add to unillustrated articles. Newcomers at these wikis can now add images to unillustrated articles sections. (T345940) The wikis that have this task are listed under "Images recommendations" at the Growth team deployment table.

Other news

• We disabled the “add an image” task temporarily (T345188) because there was a failure in the image suggestions pipeline (T345141). This is now fixed.
• You can read a report about the Growth team’s representation at Wikimania in Singapore here. Growth team members presented two sessions at Wikimania Singapore.
• After a 2.5 years-long collaboration with Bangala Wikipedia, we have decided to start a collaboration with another wiki. Swahili Wikipedia is now a pilot wiki for Growth experiments.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trizek_(WMF) Talk 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Bug with capped edit count

I realize this isn't a very important bug, given that the feature is mostly intended for newcomers, but I've come across a small bug. The "impact" part only retains the 1000 last edits (even if more have been made in the last 60 days), leading to parts of the "recent activity" (including streaks) being missing after a few days of Special:RecentChanges patrolling. Again, not a big deal as I'm not really the intended public, just wanted to warn everyone that that was a thing. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Several articles are being assigned as newcomer tasks very frequently

By "very frequently", I mean a level of newcomer edits that is disruptive in the aggregate. The articles are Parental abuse by children and Alpha Omega Alpha. Aoidh figured out that if you select "Medicine and health", those are the only two articles suggested. (This was discovered because the Parental abuse by children was posted on WP:RFPPI and I don't blame the editor for requesting page protection.)

I don't know whether any other articles are similarly affected, but it seems like something needs to be changed to avoid pummeling articles like this.

@Aoidh: Thanks again for the help! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've removed the templates from each article that were placing them in the "copyedit" task, and also removed the most obvious trigger of the {{Advert}} tag at Alpha Omega Alpha.

The cleanup tags were present since 2018 and 2019, so presumably a newly implemented topic area selector is responsible for the recent influx of people changing a word or two in the lead without really addressing the substance of the cleanup concern. Folly Mox (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

A few months ago, I asked here whether people thought it was beneficial to point newcomers looking to learn more about what the "copyedit" task involved to Wikipedia:Basic copyediting rather than Wikipedia:Writing better articles, but the thread only garnered one response.

It is definitely true that the types of edits being made by newcomers for the "copyedit" task are generally positive or at least not harmful, and it's engaging new people and letting them learn the fundamentals of Wikipedia editing, even if they're too inexperienced to help resolve the cleanup tag to any real degree.

I think that's a good outcome, but I have experienced some mild annoyance when a page I watchlist gets tagged for copyedit cleanup and then sees frequent edits by accounts with single digit editcounts changing a single conjunction in the lead, adding a definite article, or adding or altering one or two punctuation marks, as if that's the kind of copyediting we add a tag about.

A knock-on effect of high levels of trivial engagement by new accounts on pages so tagged may be experienced editors performing necessary cleanup, not so much because of their own concern for article quality, but to quell the roil of insignificant minor alterations, so they're not clicking through their watchlists to the same pages several times daily to review the edits for errors.

So I think this system is still beneficial, both for new editor engagement and for encyclopaedic quality, although the first may be driving the latter indirectly, and the experience for the moderating force in that driver (mildly annoyed experienced editors) could be improved. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the link for copyedit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan and Aoidh, Special:NewcomerTasksInfo suggests there are more copyedit honeypots in the topic areas of "comics and anime", "fashion", "performing arts", "food and drink" (one article each), "history" (two articles), and "central america" (three articles). The linked page doesn't have an easy way to tell what these articles are. Most of the other topics have either zero articles tagged or hundreds to thousands, with a few in the double digits. Folly Mox (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was able to determine which articles were listed where by checking "Display newcomer homepage" at the bottom of the "User Profile" section of Special:Preferences, and then clicking on my user page, where a "Homepage" link is found to the left of "User page" and "Talk". From there I can view suggested edits and see, for example, that List of Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger characters is the only article listed when I select "Easy edits" for Comics and anime. - Aoidh (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The other articles seem to be 59 Productions, Free Beer, Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and José Arechabala S.A. Evidently the regional topic group can overlay the other groups, which is nice. Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the utility of the system. I'm simply concerned about the rate of newcomer edits on a subset of articles. It overwhelms the ability of the community to conduct peer review and give timely feedback. For example, this large edit on Parental abuse by children removed references, a substantial amount of text and formatting, etc.—it needed to be reviewed, but instead it was buried under more and more newcomer edits.

Would it be possible to simply not show categories with fewer than say twenty articles? Or perhaps sparse categories could be aggregated into a general catchall category?

Another option would be a more direct implementation of rate limiting. For example, if someone makes a newcomer edit on an article, don't show it again for 12 hours or some other period of time.

Side note: It seems like a lot of newcomer edits are being mismarked with the minor edit flag when the edit is definitely not a minor edit. Would it be possible to coach this a bit better in the newcomer system? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I was the one questioning the utility of the system, and talked myself into an opinion about it.

The issue we're seeing here seems tied in with the fact that the "copyedit" task (and currently inoperable "links" task, see § Usefulness of "Add links" task? above) is the only type of suggested edit that is assessed in difficulty as "easy" (for which see this ANI and this related thread on mw).

It might be getting close to time for another community discussion about this: in my own estimation, the "update" task seems easier, but part of the problem comes from the maintenance templates used to include an article under the "copyedit" task. {{Inappropriate person}} and {{In-universe}} are easy to fix. {{Advert}} and especially {{Tone}} are much more difficult, and not generally suitable for newer editors. Splitting the copyedit task into tiers may be of use, although it would further reduce the number of articles suggested to very new editors looking for easy tasks.

We could also potentially wait about it: Pppery's change of the help page associated with the copyedit task may help (which would be emotionally validating to me personally). Growth Team may also implement the AI-assisted version of the "links" tasks soon, which should give more easy edits.

Another step any editor can take is, when we run across articles in the course of our gnoming that could use copyediting, be more liberal in our application of tags like {{Tone}}, especially if the articles are in the sparse–easy-edits topics, to spread out the newcomer edits more broadly, so they can be more easily reviewed. We could also do the reverse, and fix up any copyedit-task–eligible articles in sparse topics, to ensure that newcomers looking for "easy" tasks are always presented with many article choices or none at all. Folly Mox (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are more cleanup tags we could add to the "copyedit" task in Special:EditGrowthConfig. {{essay-like}}, for example, is just a more specific (often more easily addressed) version of {{tone}}. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This (subthreaded) avenue may be fruitful: looking at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup, there are a lot of easy-seeming templates that could be utilised for an "actually easy" tier of copyediting, should we wish to go that route.

Apart from {{inappropriate person}} (53 transclusions) and {{in-universe}} (1282 transclusions) already in use, and {{essay-like}} (4457 transclusions) mentioned just above, we have the easy-seeming {{all plot}} (1900 transclusions) dumb example; see below 14:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC), {{long plot}} (3851 transclusions), {{abbreviations}} (82 transclusions), {{like resume}} (3780 transclusions), {{trivia}} (571 transclusions), and {{prose}} (3350 transclusions).

I've excluded very low-transclusion cleanup templates as being of limited utility. For example {{cleanup tense}} should always be an easy fix, but only has 27 transclusions.

{{essay-like}} may not actually be "truly easy" (but likely easier than {{tone}}), and falls into a category of cleanup templates which require some knowledge of what we expect in terms of encyclopaedic tone, but are likely placed on articles in a worse initial state than {{tone}} might be. Similarly with {{story}} (256 transclusions), {{manual}} (492 transclusions), {{how-to}} (332 transclusions), {{over-quotation}} (1325 transclusions), and {{travel guide}} (478 transclusions).

There are more templates available for other structured tasks too. In general I think we're underutilising en.wp's established cleanup template structure within the suggested edits feature, probably mainly due to lack of engagement by experienced editors. User:Trizek (WMF), is there an upper bound on the number of cleanup templates that can be associated with each structured task? Folly Mox (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think {{all plot}} is what you want here - it generally means more content on non-plot subjects need to be added, not that copyediting is required. I agree the others can be added to the existing copyedit task, but I'll hold off doing so myself for a day or two to allow for other comments. Creating a separate "easy copyedit" vs. "hard copyedit" task does not appear to be something that can be done via Special:EditGrowthConfig and would need a Phabricator task. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure some of my selections are not actually easy, which is why the emphasis on easy-seeming. I probably also missed some genuinely easy tasks. I'm not proposing these templates be included without further discussion (my methodology was: hastily skim WP:TC while having a half-conversation with my roommate).

I do think that additional structured tasks are locally configurable per-project, without phab input, but have to be defined manually in MediaWiki:NewcomerTasks.json rather than through the interface. Perhaps Trizek or xaosflux knows with greater certainty. Folly Mox (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked, you can't just add them directly in to the json. It's been a while though. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "essay like" is a good newcomer task; often these articles need deletion or redirection to better articles, not copy editing. I've been around the block quite a few times, and often find myself scratching my head over what to do with them. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure deletion or redirection is that frequent of an outcome, but it is one of the more difficult tags to resolve. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

{{verify spelling}} has 485 transclusions; {{awkward}} (already in place) has 140; {{copy edit section}} only has 97; {{copy edit}} has 2619.

One problem with several of the cleanup tags listed above (like {{long plot}} and {{over-quotation}}) is that addressing them involves mainly removing text from a live article. That's not really the introduction we probably want for most new editors. Folly Mox (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting zero edit accounts to make a single not entirely unhelpful copyedit to an article isn't a bad start to their editing career; I wonder if maybe part of the problem is that things like fixing typos and obviously incorrect grammar is just something we already do ourselves so instinctively that cleanup tags aren't a great fit for it. I almost think it might be better for the Suggested Edits goals for the "easy edit" copyedit task, if instead of using cleanup tags it just gave a random assortment of articles in subcats of Category:Start-Class articles (2,263) Folly Mox (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding wikilinks is pretty harmless, as long as they are steered away from linking countries, linking all instances of a term or linking adjacent words. (Pity we ditched the "wikify" template.) Typo fixing too, as long as they don't start changing English flavo(u)r. I don't think anything else I've seen truly new users attempt provides them with a good experience. Removing sections of text will get substantial pushback, even where totally merited. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Trizek has the unofficial wikilink blacklist, and assures us above that the AI-backed "link" task should be avoiding SEAOFBLUE. I agree that typo fixing is a fine first edit (it was mine, iirc, as an IP lo these many years ago). I do also think the five pages of guidance in the modal at the first clickthrough in the Suggested Edits flow should definitely mention ENGVAR, which is a super common stumbling block.

Probably my own experience is just the cognitive dissonance of seeing people drawn to clean up an article without doing any article cleaning, like showing up to a garden party and alphabetising the buckets. The tight bunching associated with the sparse topics is properly a separate issue. Folly Mox (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just went and unearthed my first IP edits and they are mostly substantive additions (though my first edit after creating an account is a typo fix). I wonder if it would be more satisfying to suggest more creative work? Or would it just be off-puttingly hard? Could we suggest stub or start articles where there are usable free online sources (Guardian obits, f'rex, or RSoc memorials) that are already referenced in the article but have scarcely been used? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, we aren't using any sort of rejection links lists. The algorithm we use for Suggested link (which is not yet deployed at your wiki) has been proven reliable at the Wikipedias where it is deployed. When the deployment will happen, we will carefully observe the feature, and make the necessary fixes if any.

The other tasks are less structured, and they will be more opened to the creative work @Espresso Addict mentions.

The Editing team works on Edit check, to prompt users to add citations when they add a certain amount of text to an article. It is a work in progress that just started. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: there have been several recent discussions about the "minor edit" flag, and consensus seems to be that newcomers marking non-minor edits as minor is the correct use case for the modern meaning of "minor edit": "requires review". Folly Mox (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have created {{no newcomer task}} and configured all newcomer tasks to exclude articles from it, since that seems like a better solution than removing valid maintenance tags as Folly Mox did to Parental abuse by children. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware the action was suboptimal and not a real solution when I made the choice. Folly Mox (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Related discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Waves of test edits at Australian Bureau of Statistics and User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63#Requesting advice. Folly Mox (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Add a link, a guided task for newcomers.

Permalink for the Noticeboard request. Apparently, the request was a "mixed bag", to quote one of the comments. I agree on the fact that some edits aren't perfect, or are of the vandalism sort. But they have to be compared to the reste of edits who are apparently okay.

Regarding added links (related to #Usefulness of "Add links" task?), we have a solution: we can set boundaries by suggesting appropriate links, with a yes/no choice. The goal is to encourage newcomers to edit first, and then go deeper. We plan to deploy it at English Wikipedia at the beginning of 2024. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if I've made you feel like this is your problem to solve. I just thought you'd be a good person to loop in. Folly Mox (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, you are right: I'm the right person to ping! :) We want to understand the incident, like we don't want our features to cause frustration at any community.

I feel that case is a misuse of the tools, by not following the prompts, more than a technical issue. We always have had, and will always have problems with editing tools and users coming with an agenda; it is true since we have an edit button. :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Visibility of H:YFA from Growth Team features, with a dark mode discursus

According to Special:EditGrowthConfig, the link from Special:Homepage Destination page for a link about creating a new article is Help:Creating pages rather than Help:Your first article. Likewise, the destination link for Help Panel link #5, How to create a new article, is not Help:Your first article but instead Wikipedia:Article wizard. Given that everyone actively working with new editors links them to Help:Your first article (or, rarely, its slimmed down variant User:Houseblaster/YFA draft), this guidance should probably be in the Help Panel somewhere instead of one or both of the mentioned links.

In the Suggested Edits pane, images from articles are shown in inverted colour when using dark mode. Lotta blue faces. This can be fixed by adding class="mw-no-invert" inside the span tags that hold the image. Folly Mox (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The community can decide which link is the most appropriate and change them in Special:EditGrowthConfig.

Re: dark mode - can you share a screenshot please @Folly Mox? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for sure on the community configuration element ☺️ I just don't know what would be a more appropriate venue for discussion than this talk page. Maybe this and a lot of the above thread should head to one of the village pumps. I'll try to get a screenshot uploaded. I'm sure it's easy. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

c:File:Suggested Edits x dark mode.png. Folly Mox (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: dark mode -- Thank you for the image. It is quite self-explainatory. :) I documented the problem, but as the dark mode is at the very first steps (prototype testing). No idea when the fix will be done, as this dark mode is not promoted to newcomers. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure; that's understandable. I don't even know if the images are enclosed in span tags to accept the class="mw-no-invert" parameter, although I assume they are.

As to the question of community discussion, it's clear this page doesn't get that much traffic (99 watchers), so maybe after work today I'll raise the above concerns at WP:VPI or WP:VPWMF. I'll be sure to drop a link here if I do 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)