Wikipedia is backing off a plan to test AI article summaries. Earlier this month, the platform announced plans to trial the feature for about 10 percent of mobile web visitors. To say they weren’t well-received by editors would be an understatement. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) then changed plans and cancelled the test.
The AI summaries would have appeared at the top of articles for 10 percent of mobile users. Readers would have had to opt in to see them. The AI-generated summaries only appeared “on a set of articles” for the two-week trial period.
Editor comments in the WMF’s announcement (via 404 Media) ranged from “Yuck” to “Grinning with horror.” One editor wrote, “Just because Google has rolled out its AI summaries doesn’t mean we need to one-up them. I sincerely beg you not to test this, on mobile or anywhere else. This would do immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source.”
“Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent,” the editor continued. “Let’s not insult our readers’ intelligence and join the stampede to roll out flashy AI summaries.”
Editors’ gripes weren’t limited to the idea. They also criticized the nonprofit for excluding them from the planning phase. “You also say this has been ‘discussed,’ which is thoroughly laughable as the ‘discussion’ you link to has exactly one participant, the original poster, who is another WMF employee,” an editor wrote.
A Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson shared the following statement with Engadget:
“The Wikimedia Foundation has been exploring ways to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects more accessible to readers globally. This two-week, opt-in experiment was focused on making complex Wikipedia articles more accessible to people with different reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, the summaries were generated by an open-weight Aya model by Cohere. It was meant to gauge interest in a feature like this, and to help us think about the right kind of community moderation systems to ensure humans remain central to deciding what information is shown on Wikipedia.
For these experiments, our usual process includes discussing with volunteers (who create and curate all the information on Wikipedia) to make decisions on whether and how to proceed with building features. The discussion around this feature is an example of this process, where we built out a prototype of an idea and reached out to the Wikipedia volunteer community for their thoughts.
It is common to receive a variety of feedback from volunteers, and we incorporate it in our decisions, and sometimes change course. We welcome such thoughtful feedback — this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly collaborative platform of human knowledge.
As shared in our latest post on the community discussion page, we do not have any plans to continue the experiment at the moment, as we continue to assess and discuss the feedback we have already received from volunteers.”In the “discussion” page, the organization explained that it wanted to cater to its audience’s needs. “Many readers need some simplified text in addition to the main content,” a WMF employee wrote. “In previous research, we heard that readers wanted to have an option to get a quick overview of a topic prior to jumping into reading the full article.”
The organization didn’t rule out future uses of AI. But they said editors won’t be left in the dark next time. “Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such,” the spokesperson told 404 Media. “We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement.”
Update, June 13, 2025, 12:52PM ET: This story has been corrected to note that Wikipedia never actually started its AI summary test. The plan was announced, but cancelled before it took place. A statement from the Wikimedia Foundation has also been added, and the headline has been updated as well.
Credit: Source link