Wikipedia cancels a plan to test the abstract intelligence summaries after editing the editors

Wikipedia has retracted a plan to test artificial intelligence article summaries. Earlier this month, the platform announced plans to experience the feature of about 10 percent of mobile web visitors. Saying that they were not future by the editors would be underestimated. Then the Wikimedia (WMF) changed the plans and canceled the test.

Abstracts of artificial intelligence appeared at the top of the articles by 10 percent of mobile phone users. Readers had to subscribe to see them. The abstracts created from artificial intelligence only appeared “on a group of articles” for the experimental period for two weeks.

WMF’s Editor’s Comments advertisement ((via 404 mediaYuk ranged into “a smile with horror.” One of the editors wrote, “Just because Google has put up the abstract intelligence summaries does not mean that we need to follow them. I sincerely beg to not test this, on the mobile phone or anywhere else. This will lead to immediately irreversible harm to our readers and issuing our reputation as a source of trustworthy and dangerous.”

“In some respects, Wikipedia has become a burning word for boring, which is excellent,” the editor continued. “Let’s not congratulate our readers’ intelligence and join Stampeed to launch cheerful abstracts. “

The grip of the editors was not limited to the idea. They also criticized non -profit organizations to exclude them from the planning stage. “You also say that this was” discussed “, which is just laughing like the” discussion “with which one participant is totally associated with, the original poster, another WMF employee.

A spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation shared the following statement with Engadget:

The Wikimedia Foundation explores Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects More accessible to readers worldwide. This two -week experience focused on making Wikipedia articles more easy for people Various reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, summaries were created by an open -weight AYA model by COHERE. It was supposed to measure interest in such an advantage, and help us think about the appropriate type of societal moderation systems to ensure that human beings remain essential in identifying information that appears on Wikipedia.

For these experiments, our usual process includes discussion with volunteers (who create all information about Wikipedia and arrange them) to make decisions on whether to proceed with construction features. The discussion on this feature is an example of this process, as we built a preliminary model of an idea and communicated with a Wikipedia volunteer community for their ideas.

It is common to get a variety of comments from volunteers, and merge them in our decisions, and sometimes we change the path. We welcome such studied comments – this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly cooperative platform for human knowledge.

She also participated in Our last post On the community discussion page, we have no plans to continue the experience at the present time, as we continue to evaluate and discuss the comments that we have already received from volunteers. “On the” Discussion “page, the Foundation explained that it wants to meet the needs of its fans.” books. “In previous research, we heard that readers wanted to have an option to get a quick overview of the topic before jumping to read the full article.”

The organization has not excluded the future uses of Amnesty International. But they said that the editors will not be left in the next time. “Bringing artificial intelligence in the Wikipedia reading experience is a dangerous set of decisions, with important effects, and we intend to deal with it in this way,” the spokesman said. 404 media. “We do not have any plans to bring a brief feature to the wiki without the editor’s participation.”

Update, June 13, 2025, 12:52 pm East time: This story was corrected to note that Wikipedia has not actually started testing a summary of artificial intelligence. The plan was announced, but it was canceled before it happened. A statement issued by the Wikimedia Foundation was added, and the title was also updated.