Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:41 UTC
Created attachment 4596 [details] image of proposal Hi. I started a thread at the Village pump and as it was to do with a development, was pointed here. I would like to suggest a new radio button/checkbox option for the bottom of editing window emphasizing references and citations. At the bottom of the editing window, there are a couple of clickable radio buttons. " '''x''' This is a minor edit ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit what's this?]) and '''x''' Watch this page " What I would like to propose is a third button taking the first place; * '''The purpose of this button would be to flag up that the edit was to add a references or citation, or that the edit included a references or citation.''' See rough example; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Wikidevproposal.jpg * Why? :a) to promote the idea and encourage individuals to use and add references and citations. This will remind them EVERY time they click the '''Save page''' button. (Good placement is key to good advertising/social programming). :b) to quickly and easily register that the edits were considerable edits (OK, a small proportion of idiots could fake it and lazy folk ignore it but that is true of any system). :c) allow for tracking of the number and type of edits being made :d) assist admins etc in profiling contributors prior to making decisions, e.g. an individual with a high citation account is proportionately more likely to knows what they are doing and why, and be doing something useful. (Equally, I could suggest another for copyedit or formatting) it would just seem a useful took to have onboard. It would encourage many users to go ahead and add more to build a good editing record. Fine, it wont fix the world but, ditto, it would not take that much coding to do or cause issues. In balance, beneficial.) --[[User:Lucyintheskywithdada|Lucyintheskywithdada]] ([[User talk:Lucyintheskywithdada|talk]]) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC) :I'd support that if you simplify to "Added reference". Among other reasons for simplification: this is only going to be valuable if this shows up for edits the same way that minor edits to (say, as "r", similar to the "m" for minor edits), and can be used as a filter (so, for example, exclude edits that have the "Added reference" checkbox checked). :My personal preference would be even more dramatic: disallow the ''addition'' of information to Wikipedia ''unless'' a source (reference) - existing or added - is provided for that information. But I realize that such is not the tradition of Wikipedia, and that quality of information still isn't as important as quantity of information. So perhaps a checkbox will at least nudge editors in the right direction. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
>> a small proportion of idiots could fake it and lazy folk ignore it but that is true of any system << I think as soon as this feature is added, all vandals will fake it and only a small proportion of users will remember to use it, which makes the feature rather pointless. Also, similar feature could be request for lots of other things (adding external links, adding images, ''removing'' external links or images, ''removing references'')! And we should ask us why we should add one of them and not the others. "disallow the ''addition'' of information to Wikipedia ''unless'' a source (reference) ... is provided" And how do you find addition? Adding a word? A letter? A sentence? Is expanding or rewording current information a form of addition? If yes, then do you think it is possible to add another reference when rewording a para? If no, then where is the border between addition and non-addition? I think there are many reasons why we shouldn't force every addition to be referenced. And finally, about nudging editors, I think a new checkbox won't have any better result than the currently existant sentence "right below the edit box" which says encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Regards, Huji, the pessimistic?!
Oh, and I forgot to say that: MediaWiki is used for many projects other than Wikipedias. Typical examples are the Wikias. They don't expect such a checkbox there, I guess. So if such a feature is needed for Wikipedia (and/or a "few" other places were MediaWiki is used) they should better appear as an extension which is installed "after" their communities have shown complete agreement about their use.
This would seem to make the edit form even more complex for new users...
(In reply to comment #2) > Oh, and I forgot to say that: MediaWiki is used for many projects other than > Wikipedias. Typical examples are the Wikias. They don't expect such a checkbox > there, I guess. So if such a feature is needed for Wikipedia (and/or a "few" > other places were MediaWiki is used) they should better appear as an extension > which is installed "after" their communities have shown complete agreement > about their use. > Even the other Wikimedia projects wouldn't use this. It doesn't make sense in the context of *Commons, where there are no citations *Meta, where there is generally no content requiring citation *Wikisource, where there is (AFAIK) no content requiring citation *Wikibooks (maybe), where citations works quite differently *Wikiversity (probably) *Incubator (some of the time), which incubates more than just new Wikipedia projects I'd suggest this is a bad idea for core software, but might be implemented as an extension if well thought-out. By well thought-out, I mean that benefits outweigh costs - one major cost is edit form complexity which is contrary to our current focus on usability. It's not clear to me that the added benefit is worth it, even (especially?) for Wikipedia.
WONTFIX. Too narrow of a use-case, not really helpful outside of Wikipedia at all.
