Community Wishlist for 2022/Readd non-canned responses for wiki requests


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This isn't really an extension feature request or enhancement, but rather a UI tweak/modification for wiki creators, so the request should've, ideally, been requested at stewards' noticeboard and Phabricator. Indeed, there was already a Phabricator task for this, which was supported by two Stewards (including myself). Nevertheless, this has already been started via #272, in part, following that Phabricator task and #4315, so I'm closing this as ✅. Dmehus (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post closure comment: This has now ✅. Dmehus (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed by Naleksuh

Proposal summary: Stop requiring canned responses. Having them at all is questionable and only for a purpose which arguably shouldn't exist. And do not make them required.

Full proposal: Wiki creators used to write using their own responses but it was replaced with not only canned responses but required canned responses. I am no longer able to review wiki requests unless I speak words someone else has written for me and type in Dmehus' writing style and not my own. This is not okay. And to make things even more problematic, the only reason this is a thing is for training an "AI" which many people opposed having at all. We certainly do not need more machines replacing humans in the world, everyone is constantly complaining about it both on other websites like YouTube and how they are literally taking away human jobs (in this case, wiki creating is a volunteer position). Wikis need to be either freely created no request or request reviewed by humans entirely. This AI has been a problem at all especially when it is now causing problems for humans with this. AI is in theory proposed as a way to help humans, not harm and inconvenience them. See also task T8464. Naleksuh (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The option of adding a custom response option is being considered if feasible. Even then, you are free to suggest a new canned response or to tweak the current ones if you believe they are too wordy or something. Also, I'd like to comment that I haven't really seen anyone opposed to the AI other than you. Even if the AI were to be added, it would only approve requests with a score of 0.95 and above so there'd be a need for wiki creators, it would just take some of the workload off active wiki creators which I would appreciate. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If a request is really so clear cut then it wouldn't be so much workload anyway. And plus if it is going to do so little why bother with it at all? Both with the tech debt of the AI and the inconvenience this AI has. Plus, even if there is an AI, having the AI make requirements like mandatory canned responses is too far. Right now, the AI is a net negative to wiki creators, and I'm not convinced there was ever a positive. The fact that there is literally no way to type a sentence and I have to just say what someone else says for me is a major problem. Where is that anywhere else on this platform, or wikis in general? Not. Naleksuh (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And now we have stuff like Special:RequestWikiQueue/22155 which is impossible to communicate without your own text and then Dmehus plops down a misleading canned message right after that. I saw it as soon as it was requested but sadly it wasn't one of the options. Even if it was why press it? These requiured canned responses are not okay and are hindering wiki requests. I seriously have no idea who thought it would be a good idea to make it so you can no longer write text, even though we did it for years that way just fine. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not an argument for allowing custom responses within the wiki request. It is, however, an argument in favour of changing the way canned responses are implemented. For example, what I originally wanted to see was an "Other (please see below)" response option, which, if selected, would conditionally add a single line, free form text entry field that would allow for the entry of custom responses. I believe it was not implemented at the time, perhaps because Universal Omega did not yet have the PHP coding knowledge to implement that. Or, it may have been a limitation in the HTML form type used. If the former, I suspect he has the PHP coding knowledge to implement this now. If the latter, perhaps we can take a look at other HTML form types. Dmehus (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section