User talk:Tzusheng/sandbox/Validation Study

Please be bold to enter the consensus and engage in discussion about disagreements

@Zippybonzo @Skarmory @Bluerasberry @Matthewrb @Schminnte Hi everyone, thank you so much for helping with the validation study! As we approach the end of the week, please boldly enter labels into the consensus columns and kindly discuss with each other about label disagreements on this talk page. Note that the majority label is not necessarily the consensus. It is also okay to keep your labels different from the consensus while agreeing to what the consensus is. Thanks! Tzusheng (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I plan to enter a handful of them tomorrow. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered some of the more unanimous consensuses, but I think we might need more data before entering others. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a talk page message drafted that I'll post when I'm done with everything (hopefully later today). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo @Schminnte @Skarmory Thank you very much! We have only eight to go! Tzusheng (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzusheng, I am literally 1:58 away from my destination on my flight, then I’ll fill some of them in on my laptop, as I find it hard to use visual editor on my tablet. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo No worries at all! I really appreciate all your help and support. By the way, please feel free to boldly enter the consensus once the rest are finished. Thanks! Tzusheng (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, plane WiFi isn’t that reliable so I’ll wait till I get home (few hours assuming airport staff aren’t on strike). Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Here's my thoughts.

A lot of these were not easy to categorize, which I guess is probably how they ended up here. Examples – do I consider an edit that forgets to consider text-source integrity damaging, even if it introduces correct information? What about an edit breaking table formatting but adding information? What about an unsourced edit in an article or section that's enough of a mess that I don't think any non-vandalism edit can really damage it further? Intermediate edits that are unhelpful but quickly fixed? These are the types of debates where mostly we seem to have split.

Also, a note: the template added in Special:Diff/680497781/683511584 (Ollie Hayes) existed at the time of the edit. There's a bit of funkiness with the move and page creation logs, but that edit would not be damaging for breaking a template. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ollie Hayes, that's exactly my reasoning. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and fill the consensus in as not damaging per this. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Points regarding the remaining cells

@Zippybonzo @Skarmory @Bluerasberry @Matthewrb: I've tried to judge as many boxes for consensus as I can individually, but some still remain. Here are my thoughts regarding them

681052757/681086400: Cindy Ngarambe is mentioned nowhere else in the article. I would say this is not damaging as a valid removal.
677934765/685548844: Reverted contribution says it was link spam, I'm open to hearing other opinions regarding damage.
618199239/692384164: Seems like subtle vandalism, so I think it is bad faith.
708655010/708695027: Same situation as above, I also think this is bad faith for subtle vandalsim (date changes).
719484034/723407464: I think this is damaging as Nelson Story is not the one currently operating the ranch. That would be quite impossible, unless he has mysteriously reanimated.
724757924/726787424: This seems to be the most divisive diff. My rationale is that if you look at the edits immediately after that, the box is returned. I labelled this not damaging and good faith for this reason, as it was more a constructive edit over a longer time period.

Those are just my thoughts. It would be great to see where others agree and disagree on these to help us get down this final stretch. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also couldn't find any actors named Cindy Ngarambe searching the name. I can't see how this is damaging, it's removing a person who wasn't in the series or the rest of the article from the infobox.
This was right on the border for me, but the citation introduced didn't support the content as far as I could tell.
Possibly subtle vandalism, but searching YouTube for the song gives a timestamp of 4:04, so I AGF'd. (YouTube adds a second to the video length for some reason in most searches.)
If this is good faith, I legitimately have no idea what they were trying to do, because it doesn't make any sense. I can't mark it anything other than bad faith as such.
Once again, the citation doesn't support the content, and there's no evidence of the ranch changing hands to another Nelson Story.
Definitely good faith, and I went with not damaging for the same reason. (It's the main reason I added my question about intermediate edits in my thoughts comment.)

Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above.
I read the citation as spam. Google Translate reads as a spam site, offering extra spins in exchange for following the links.
I wasn't sure either, so I AGFed.
Again, on the fence with this one. If I saw this during vandalism patrol this would have a been a revert without a warn.
This was another close one. I went with damaging because the name was only changed in one place, and if the ranch had truly changed hands we would have gotten more ~~deal~~ info.
I went with bad faith because I thought that it had removed a future appearance that I assumed was well-known (were I doing a Huggle patrol, I would have left this for someone else to look at). I didn't notice that this was part of a series of edits, so I've changed my assessment.

~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With 2. I added not damaging as consensus, being that it wasn't damaging, but not necessarily wanted. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we seem happy then to say that 1) is not damaging 5) is damaging? I'll update 6) based on the changed consensus. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the people who marked 1) or 5) as damaging and not damaging respectively have commented on them. @Zippybonzo and Bluerasberry: any objections? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1) I don't particularly mind. Regarding 5) I would say that it wasn't damaging, but problematic. Both 1 and 5 are definitely good faith though. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and wrap up

@Zippybonzo @Skarmory @Bluerasberry @Matthewrb @Schminnte Hi everyone, thank you all for your help and active participation over the past week! Here are the three remaining items to wrap up the study:

Please feel free to boldly enter the consensus for the remaining three cells in the table.
Once the table is complete, please kindly submit this Google Form (https://forms.gle/yiCzQ57k7pau9tc57) to let us know whether you'd prefer to accept or decline the compensation for the study.
If you're interested in our upcoming report about Wikibench (including this validation study), please consider signing up for future updates.

Again, I really appreciate your help and kindness. Please feel free to ping me or reach out anytime if you have any questions. Thanks! Tzusheng (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]