#needsdata

What data is needed?

Alright, one could say that this task is a duplicate of T66921, the difference being that before it was about bugs only and now it's about all tasks in general. Also, that discussion went so wrong that I think it is better to let it rest, and refresh our views here.

From that thread:

In T66921#700891, @kaldari wrote:

As explained at http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/02/the-wikipedia-editors-behind-the-curtain/, the rationale for surfacing authorship information is to help transition readers into editors. Getting more editors increases the depth and quality of Wikipedia. No evidence has been provided that a "Last edited" statement is confusing, nor would I expect it to be.

I fully agree with this. The only objection is the focus on a single editor instead of the collaborative work. I think the goal of this strapline could be achieved with a different sentence that, in turn, would describe better the effort put in an article and its hypothetical quality.

Written by N volunteers and updated 6 months ago.

N would be calculated based on registered users minus bots. We could consider the form "by more than N volunteers" if there are anonymous edits as well.

"6 months ago" would link to the history as it does now, but the bold font would highlight it as a link.

There was discussion about this in Hebrew Village Pump, and there is a consensus that "last edited by USER" should be removed. Here is my summary for this discussion (I wasn't involved in this discussion):

• A user called "Yemenite Camel" ( who opened the discussion ) , who edited many soccer articles, claimed teenagers reading on soccer see his nickname and create similar nicknames ("X Camel") that are used for vandalism.
• This gives too bold indication on "last edited" but in many cases the article isn't up to date and the last edit was a technical change or a bot update and nothing more, which gives the reader misleading impression
• This isn't consistent with the non-mobile version

For the full discussion see: https://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F&oldid=17645704#.D7.94.D7.95.D7.A6.D7.90.D7.AA_.D7.A7.D7.99.D7.98.D7.95.D7.A8

The main advantage of exposing the username is to have awareness with readers outside the community that wikipedia is written by individuals like them. this creates a sense of community.

I agree that only one username has it's own problem i would still advocate for having the usernames.

Can we look at not loosing this sense but still being fair at representing?

maybe something like this? ->

or this

this is rough and obviously will go through the standardization process on UI part. but it archives following things

1. shows how many people are involved into making this article happen
2. shows freshness of the article
3. creates the sense of human involvement into projects

Note: we need to think about how we can have a more standard treatment to this which fits into our design principals and matches other ui components.

Thank you @Nirzar ! For what is worth, I personally like the second proposal better. More interesting data, no usernames, a visual cue to know more.

This doesn't appear to be actionable at current time and needs more thought.