It is common for fact-checkers to have typos in their replies.
We don't allow direct edit to replies because:
The reply may be attached to multiple hoax by other fact-checkers, and we are not sure if the edited version still apply to these messages.
There may be feedbacks towards the existing reply text who may not be suitable for the edited text.
The status quo is that, whenever the fact checker want to fix their typo, they delete their own reply and post new replies. This does not cause issues listed above, but is tedious to run manually.
In this ticket, we propose to automate the following process for the fact-checkers:
Provide a "Revise" button in fact-checker's own replies. When clicked, the user is brought to the reply detail page with a new edit interface.
The new edit interface on reply detail allows users to change the reply type, reply text and reference.
The submit button for the edit interface reads "Revise and Resubmit". Provide description to tell the user that the change will be applied to the suspicious messages the user has previously linked to
Upon clicking "Revise and resubmit", a dialog shows up to show what messages will be updated, and what will not be updated (because the article-reply is not created by them), and the user is asked to confirm them.
Upon clicking "confirm", UI uses the existing API to:
create new reply
link reply to the articles
remove article reply of old replies
A progress bar is shown. Upon finish, show a button that brings the user to the newly created reply.
TODO: Figma for the function
This ticket superseds cofacts/rumors-api#184 , which proposes a complex editing logic to mitigate the challenges listed at top. The solution described in this ticket is easier to implement and thus superior.
It is common for fact-checkers to have typos in their replies.
We don't allow direct edit to replies because:
The status quo is that, whenever the fact checker want to fix their typo, they delete their own reply and post new replies. This does not cause issues listed above, but is tedious to run manually.
In this ticket, we propose to automate the following process for the fact-checkers:
TODO: Figma for the function
This ticket superseds cofacts/rumors-api#184 , which proposes a complex editing logic to mitigate the challenges listed at top. The solution described in this ticket is easier to implement and thus superior.