User:DErenrich-WMF/Add A Fact Experiment
Add A Fact is a temporary experimental tool created by the Wikimedia Foundation's Future Audiences team to learn how and if we can support making it possible to contribute productively to Wikipedia from outside of Wikipedia, and if guidance to the contributor from a large language model (LLM) could be useful in this process. The idea was developed and workshopped with Wikipedians at WikiConference North America 2023, demoed and tested with Wikipedia community members as part of our team’s regular monthly community calls.
Add A Fact is available for the Google Chrome, Chromium-based browsers (such as Opera) and Mozilla Firefox browsers and can be used by any logged in, autoconfirmed English Wikipedia user. We welcome your feedback on the talk page of this page, or via the Feedback tool in the browser extension.
How it works
[edit]Add A Fact is an experimental extension for the Chrome and Firefox browsers. For now, an (auto)confirmed English Wikipedia account is required to submit facts with this extension.
- After downloading and logging in (we also recommend pinning the extension to your browser toolbar), you can use this extension on any non-Wikipedia (or Chrome/Firefox store) webpage.
- While reading any secondary source on the web (a news item, a scholarly article, etc.), you can open Add A Fact and highlight a short claim that you may want to add to Wikipedia.
- A large language model (LLM) will check if the selected claim is related to any existing Wikipedia articles, and will present information about whether the fact is fully, partially, or not present in these articles. You may also search for an article of your choosing.
- Once you select a Wikipedia article to add your fact to, Add A Fact will give you the option of sending a pre-filled template message to the talk page of the article, which includes the selected text, any additional comments you’d like to add, and a structured citation. This message will be signed under your Wikipedia username.
- If the URL of the source you are on appears on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, you will receive a warning message about your source’s reliability (but will still be able to add a suggested fact from this source). If the URL of the source you are on appears on the spam blocklist, you will not be able to add a suggested fact from this source.
- To limit any potential misuse/spam, Add A Fact users will be limited to sending a maximum of 10 facts per day during this early experimental period.
How AI is used in this tool
[edit]In this extension, we are using AI to:
- Search Wikipedia for articles related to the claim/fact that a user selects and present those back to the user.
- Search within a selected article to determine whether the highlighted claim/fact is already present in the article (and does not need to be suggested/added to Wikipedia) and present this information to the user.
AI is not used to write any text that is published to the talk page via this extension.
What we hope to learn
[edit]As with all Future Audiences experiments, Add A Fact seeks to prove or disprove a hypothesis about how we might continue to sustain and grow Wikimedia projects in a changing online knowledge landscape. In this case, we’re seeking to understand how people can make editorial contributions off-platform (that is, without going directly to Wikipedia.org), and if generative AI can support or hinder this process:
- This experiment: Could being able to add facts to Wikipedia in a light-touch way help existing Wikipedia editors? This is what the current version of Add A Fact is designed to test.
- Potential future experiments: Could being able to add facts to Wikipedia in a light-touch way engage new casual/non-Wikipedian audiences to contribute productively? This is what we’d like your feedback on as you use this tool, to help us understand if it is a future experiment we should build/test.
How you can help
[edit]Below are some more specific topics we’d like to open conversation on. Once you’ve had a chance to download and use the tool, please weigh in on any of these or give us general feedback on the talk page. You’re also welcome to give feedback and report issues to our team privately via the Feedback link in the tool itself (can be found in the footer of the side-panel).
Solicited feedback
[edit]1. Using AI to support editing practices
[edit]You may have noticed the assessments under each article suggested by Add A Fact. Those are generated by an LLM. Did you find those helpful? What other ways could an LLM make contributing to Wikipedia via a tool like this faster or easier?
2. User experience of the extension as it is
[edit]How did you find using the extension? What did you like/dislike the most? Would you recommend any additional or removal of features? Does it fit into your usual workflow of finding/adding new facts to Wikipedia?
3. Where suggestions for new claims/references should be housed
[edit]As of now, for the MVP, Add A Fact sends additions to the chosen article talk page. We recognize this may not be the best place for new content to be reviewed, moderated, or incorporated into an article. What could a better store of added facts look and work like?
4. How to handle sources deemed semi- or non-reliable
[edit]With the exception of URLs that are blocked from being added to English Wikipedia, you can use Add A Fact to add suggested new facts from any source on the Internet. We wanted to let the human users make the decisions as to where to add claims and sources from – both due to the complexity and context-dependent nature of sourcing guidelines on Wikipedia, and to avoid the perception that Wikipedia is censored or biased. The tool currently provides a warning if a source is known to be problematic according to the perennial sources list and other onwiki lists of unreliable sources.What do you think about this workflow? How else could we help support quality additions?
5. How/if to adapt a tool like this to be used by non-Wikipedians
[edit]A potential future for Add A Fact is to make a tool like this available to non-Wikipedians or new/casual contributors. This could increase the volume of contributions, but without careful guardrails, we know this risks become too noisy and/or abusive. Could opening up the ability to suggest new claims/references to more people be helpful to en.wiki? How could/should the workflow differ from what you see today in Add A Fact if the tool were geared toward a non-Wikipedian audience?
Other general feedback
[edit]Any thoughts welcome here!
I saw that there's an experiment and I'm always down to help people and participate. However I was overwhelmed with text and even after 60 seconds of reading I could not figure out what I should do in order to help. It might be a good idea to put a header containing a brief and to-the-point description of what you expect people to do. I am not likely to ever return to this page so no answer is needed, just take from it what you want. All the best