Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (WMF) (section)

=== Arbitrary Section Break: WMF needs your ideas ===
Hi all! I’m Sonja and I lead the contributor product teams (so Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, Connections, as well as Language and Product Localization) at WMF. I’d like to take a step back and reflect again on the broader issue this thread is raising: Over the last year especially, we’ve had many discussions on how already big backlogs are increasing to unsustainable sizes because AI is making it easier for everyone to add content. At the same time we continue to see [https://analytics.wikimedia.org/published/reports/movement-metrics/archive/2025-12.html#contributor-metrics| declines] in active editors, leading again to larger backlog sizes. Only looking at one of these core problems without looking at the other is no longer an option at this point if we want to ensure the sustainability of the projects. 

That being said, I see it as WMF’s role to both provide the tools to support and grow our ranks of editors and help experienced editors keep our content accurate, trustworthy, and neutral. The question is: how can we do that in a way that’s not overwhelming? Or said differently: what tools do we need to provide you all with to ensure that backlog sizes don’t keep increasing, even as we bring on new generations of volunteers? We’ve also touched on this in our discussion on [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2026-2027#c-SPerry-WMF-20260207000500-Pythoncoder-20260205143000:~:text=ago%3F%20%E2%80%93%E2%80%93%20STei%20(WMF)%20(talk)-,10%3A24%2C%2010%20December%202025%20(UTC),-Reply| meta] as part of our annual planning process, and folks like @[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] , @[[User:pythoncoder|pythoncoder]], and lots of others helpfully chimed in with their perspectives. One of the requests we’ve heard the most often is building tools to identify AI slop - this is [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2026-2027#c-SPerry-WMF-20260207000500-Pythoncoder-20260205143000| something we’re already working on] but it can only do so much as the quality and sophistication of AI tools changes. So what I’d really like to know is, from your perspectives what other  tools or processes could WMF build to keep up with the challenges we’re facing today? [[User:SPerry-WMF|SPerry-WMF]] ([[User talk:SPerry-WMF|talk]]) 19:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:If we're talking about detecting AI-generated content, then I can't think of anything that would be more useful than a tool to detect [[wp:AISIGNS|common AI patterns]]; if we're talking about unauthorized bot use, then there are already rate limits and hcaptcha in place.  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 20:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Talking about unauthorized bot use, maybe there could be some software in place to intentionally waste their power or bandwidth?  Like [https://github.com/TecharoHQ/anubis Anubis], a script to completely hammer their CPU, or something different.  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 20:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::There's [[MediaWiki:Editcheck-config.json]]. Something assisting that could be commissioning research to determine AI signs for some of the recent models (Gnomingstuff said our current signs are largely from [[GPT-4]]). Also [[phab:T399642]] for flagging WP:V failures [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 21:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|There's MediaWiki:Editcheck-config.json}} 
:::@[[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]]: thank you for sharing this here. There's also the newly-introduced [[Special:EditChecks]]. This page offers a more more visual view of the [[Mw:Edit check|Edit Checks]] and [[Mw:Visualeditor/Suggestion mode|Suggestions]] that are currently available. The suggestions that appear within the "Beta features" section of [[Special:EditChecks|that page]] are available if you enable "Suggestion Mode" in [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|beta features]]. ''Note: one of the experimental suggestions available via Suggestion Mode leverages [[Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing]] to highlight text that may include AI-generated content. [[User:PPelberg (WMF)|PPelberg (WMF)]] ([[User talk:PPelberg (WMF)|talk]]) 23:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::To clarify: With the caveat that we virtually never know which exact LLMs people use and whether they enabled "research mode" or whatever, our current signs are skewed toward 2024-era LLM text (GPT-4o, o1, etc), with a few historical ones (GPT-4) and one or two that are common in newer text. 
:::The real problem with writing this page, though, is to write it in a way that people will A) believe, B) not misinterpret, and C) not see as the main problem. With "promotional tone," for instance, that isn't totally accurate; there's a ''way'' in which AI writes promotional text, that is distinct from pre-AI promotional text. With the "AI vocabulary" section much of it is used in specific parts of a sentence more than others, etc. The less specific you are, the more people will misinterpret; but the more granular you are, the less likely people are to believe you. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 09:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:This feels important enough to merit marshalling some funds for some sort of in-person workshop (or at minimum a concerted effort, with outreach, to pull stakeholders into a call of some kind, rather than a subsection of a more generalized forum that will then be hidden in an archive). I know this board in particular is likely to receive a bunch of "wiki stuff should stay on-wiki" comments, but diffuse, complicated, multistakeholder conversations are just difficult to have on-wiki sometimes, and tend towards splintering, hijacking, and tangents in ways a focused events could avoid. I dare say it would also make sense to hold at least some of these conversations at a project-by-project level. Enwiki, for example, already has an awful lot of resources, guidelines, RfC decisions, a wikiproject, etc. and probably deals with a different quantity of AI-generated content than most other projects. Commons, for its part, has its own distinct needs and constraints. YMMV. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 21:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Hi @[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]], great idea. We do regular calls on the [https://discord.gg/wikipedia enwp Discord] where we discuss early-stage product features and brainstorm ideas together and this would be a perfect topic to talk through together. We've just scheduled [https://discord.gg/wikipedia?event=1476651445532229732 a call for March 18, 20:30 UTC] to focus on this topic. Would love to see you there, along with anyone else reading this thread. [[User:SPerry-WMF|SPerry-WMF]] ([[User talk:SPerry-WMF|talk]]) 15:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:Thanks a lot for bringing up that question! I believe that the Edit Check team is doing a great job in this direction already, and, beyond that, something that could help would be to make it more intuitive for editors to edit without relying on third-party AI tools (which give convincing results but are prone to hallucinations). For example, parsing the content of the edit and suggesting potential sources (that could be added to the edit text in one click), or evaluating the quality of existing sources. Getting an edit reverted for being unsourced can be a very frustrating first experience, and I believe it is a major roadblock towards editor retention, so anything that helps editors do this more intuitively could really help them not turn towards the authoritative-sounding promises of generative LLMs. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for these comments. 
::Re: Helping to remind editors/newcomers to add sources, [[mw:Help:Edit_check#Reference_check|Reference Check]] now does this and was deployed by default here on Enwiki just two weeks ago (''cf''. [[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#c-Sdkb-WMF-20260211222600-Sdkb-WMF-20260205070400|thread]]), plus the Suggestion Mode (currently a Beta Feature, ''cf''. [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 227#Suggestion Mode – new Beta Feature on Tuesday|announcement]]) has a suggestion-type that highlights existing un-cited paragraphs. As always, feedback on [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|that Beta Feature]] would be greatly appreciated, so that all aspects of it can be further refined/improved before it is shown to actual newcomers.
::Re: "''evaluating the quality of existing sources''" - As Kowal2701 notes above, [[phab:T399642|T399642 [Signal] Identify cases where reference does not support published claim]] is something we're planning on working on very soon, and are still gathering data/references/ideas for. There's also the closely related idea of [[phab:T276857|T276857 Surface Reference survival signal]] which proposes providing information to editors (and perhaps readers) about how some sites/sources might need deeper consideration before they use them as references. If anyone has additional tools or info for those tasks, please do share.
::Re: "''parsing the content of the edit and suggesting potential sources''" - I believe that idea is immensely more complicated, especially to do so ''reliably'', and I'm not aware of any current WMF work/notes towards it, though I have seen some other editors mention it as a potential future goal once LLMs improve sufficiently.
::HTH. [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 00:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks again, great to know all of these! [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 00:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Love this—exactly the sort of AI-powered tools I've been advocating for in other discussions about this. Anything that can do quick checks or flag possible issues for editors has potential to be helpful. I imagine newer editors would use features more like Suggestion Mode while experienced editors would use tools more like Signal. I have reservations about LLM detectors since they have a poor track record elsewhere, but something narrowed specifically to Wikipedia's purpose might be worth exploring. I'm not against adding things that are visible to readers, but it would need to be very unintrusive; otherwise it will become a source of annoyance and mockery for readers like the donation banners. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 05:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:Coming back to the question "''what other tools or processes could WMF build to keep up with the challenges we’re facing today?''": aside from ideas related to AI, what other tools could help editors deal with the backlogs currently being created by newcomers? I'm especially thinking about backlogs that newcomers could potentially help with (at both Enwiki and globally), but also backlogs that require more experience. Are there more large-scale ideas that should be added for consideration in [[metawiki:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2026-2027|next year's annual plan]]? Is there anything missing that you think could have a big impact on these problems? [[User:SPerry-WMF|SPerry-WMF]] ([[User talk:SPerry-WMF|talk]]) 03:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:SPerry-WMF|SPerry-WMF]] Hello! What the community desperately needs is [[:meta:Community_Wishlist/W448]] and [[:meta:Community_Wishlist/W449]] and [[:meta:Community_Wishlist/W450]]. These 3 proposals would save an tremendous amount of time. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 20:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)