Talk:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Suggested tasks based on contributions history (user interests) also for experienced editors

This page is for discussions related to the Community Wishlist/Wishes/Suggested tasks based on contributions history (user interests) also for experienced editors page.   Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new text under old text (start a new post).

Thank you

Hello @Prototyperspective, thank you for sharing a problem with the Community Wishlist. We will get back to you with further questions if need be. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for adding such a detailed wish, @Prototyperspective!

There are some great ideas here for improving and evolving Suggested Edits—thanks for putting so much thought into this! You've covered a lot of ground in this wish, and I’m curious: do you have a sense of which of the example tasks you mentioned might have the most impact?

While this wish seems fairly distinct from the Wishlist focus area of Article Creation Guidance, there is some overlap, particularly with these points:

• A better requested articles system that matches people like able to or interested in writing an article to actually learn about the request
• Reviewing article drafts (to speed up article reviews and connect relevant contributors with drafts relevant to them)

Would you see value in this wish contributing insights to the "Article Creation Guidance" focus area? Or do you feel the two are too distinct to make that connection? (Just to clarify, I wouldn’t suggest merging or changing this wish, but perhaps listing it as a resource for any team working on "Article Creation Guidance" focus area.)

Thanks again for adding this wish and sharing ideas on how Suggested Edits can evolve to support experienced editors! -- KStoller-WMF (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to hear. I think task 1 could have a really large impact but I'm not sure how many subject-level experts (mainly scientists) are actually signing up, making a few edits and would make use of this.

• Task 5 could be quite impactful – there is good or better media files in the category not used in the articles, especially datagraphics. People experienced with or becoming sensible to what media files would be useful in categories could add lots of more media this way, making articles more informative and interesting.
• For task 2 & 8 the problem is that there's so few illustrators, artists & datagraphics-creators so if these are to have impact that would need to get addressed first/alongside.
• Task 7 may be relevant to student articles but there no contributions history could be used (just quite specific interests entered by teacher and/or student) and I think students shouldn't be assigned this by teachers but choose this task. This task type would probably have much larger impact if coupled to some gamification/achievements/stats component. There are also some Wikipedia articles with lots of redlinks for major subjects read by people interested in the broader subject and still these articles do not get created so I'm very unsure about that one. Same for task 10.
• I think most impactful would be integrating the overall checking and/or checking of flagged phrases in a machine translated article of an article the user recently edited / edited a lot / is interested in – as described here but this is not part of the list of tasks since it depends on that project to be implemented first. (Btw is it possible for MinT to specify 'low certainty of correct translation' for phrases? These would then be flagged phrases as well.)
• Task 10 has some similarity to it but this checking should probably only done by people who actually edit(ed) the article and thus know it well and they could do this if the summaries are simply displayed to them within the article. It could be helpful in getting these summaries reviewed (including improved or swapped for a new autosummary) at scale quickly. Moreover, displaying such summaries of articles may enable people to quickly understand an article or issues with its contents (the summary may be flawed because the article is flawed) so they may then read and edit the full article via these summary-review tasks. These summaries are only experimental stage and I don't know how many would use them etc.
• In the link at task 6 there are some tasks that may also be very impactful – stub expansion of articles the user is interested in could be really impactful and people more readily expand short stubs than creating new articles. Like with task 11 and 7, it's not recorded how many stubs a user has expanded substantially and changing that alongside this would make it far more impactful (especially if there was a chart on the user-page and things like badges such as 'top 1% of stub expanders of the week', 'expanded 20 stubs', etc).
• Reviewing Add-a-Fact proposals and a subset of talk page requests that propose specified changes like these could also be among the most impactful, since it could speed up things a lot and make things way more up-to-date that is different from task 9 which is broader (will add this to this task and this is partly why the other proposal there is about talk page issues rather than any talk page post whose extensive reviewing would slow things down a lot).

Sorry if that's no clear answer and a lot of text, I'm not yet sure about which I would consider to be the most impactful ones after the machine translation correction tasks. Other sites keep people engaged by showing things interesting to them in their feeds every once in a while – the particular task type may not matter as much as keeping people who currently short of things to do on Wikipedia for whatever reason to still have fun contributing to the site and to keep contributing. Impactful here is thus probably defined in half by tasks that get important things be done and in half by retaining contributors or keeping their productivity high.

-

people like able to or interested in should be "likely able" there by the way, will correct that at some point. No, I don't think this wish should become part of the Article Creation Guidance focus area because it's mainly about tasks for experienced editors but adding it as a resource somehow would be great. I think these sub-components would be within the scope of this focus area albeit these are just as much tasks for experienced editors as they are for newcomers. The proposal is about the framework within and by which such tasks can be implemented. Theoretically, each of these tasks could be separate proposals and/or issues but they depend on this framework to be developed. I think developing at least two task types would be kind of part of this since the framework itself can't be used and can't have an UI so to some extent the tasks are part of the proposal. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Prototyperspective - I added this to our Task Prioritization focus area, as there's a level of helping users identify what to prioritize based on their editing history. Please let me know if you disagree! JWheeler-WMF (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think it's much about prioritization but there's no other focus area that may be more appropriate. It's more 'Task discovery+delegation and contributor productivity+retainment' (probably there's a way to phrase that more succinctly). Given that there's no focus area about that or something approximating that, that focus area seems fine if it doesn't mean it could be added to such a focus area if such is ever created.

There's also some sort of prioritization in there depending on how it's implemented since it could facilitate tasks to be done that the user is good at and/or that the community thinks are important for people to do (e.g. as is clearly the case with task example #6 where WikiProject members specified these). In general personalized task discovery is not the same as personal or collective prioritization but at least there is some relation to prioritization I guess. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah, I think the hard thing here is this wish is so detailed, it's almost impossible to say which part of it we'd prioritize or leave out. There's so many use cases of "suggested tasks" we'd want to really unpack a first opportunity and then go from there...

I added to task prioritization as it is a "suggested task" for someone to do, although some of the items in the proposal are more nuanced. JWheeler-WMF (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify but those many example tasks are not the proposal. These are basically just there to make it clearer to readers why this framework would be useful. The proposal is about a Task personalization framework that includes a modular dashboard and datacrunching of user contributions. The tasks themselves are separate and would use / be integrated into that modular system. The focus area is currently a redlink in the Wishes table but that could also be solved by redirecting that page. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The link added however is a redlink. Please see Community Wishlist/Wishes. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Focus areas

@JWheeler-WMF: Adding multiple focus areas to one wish doesnt seem to be possible (at least not the way you did). I removed Connecting contributors as you decided for Task prioritization in the discussion above. Maybe there is a workaround, but until this is possible, we should put the wish in at least one focus area. –MrBenjo (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)