Thanks for creating this task! Regarding "should be available to users the possibility," I think that's too weak of a nudge. AI-generated images with prompts are much more useful than those without, so it's a piece of info we'd really like to have. And yeah, there may be some small subset of AI-generated images that were made in a way that didn't involve a prompt, or some small portion of users who won't complete the upload if forced to give the prompt, but on the whole, it's something that I think users will provide if we ask for it.

So I'd prefer the software to be designed in a way that really encourages users to provide the prompt, and makes it possible but not super easy to opt out. (I might feel differently about this if AI-generated images were hard to create and something we were really lacking, but the opposite is true — we're being flooded with them and trying to decide how to determine which ones to keep. So if a strong ask for uploaders results in fewer uploads of AI-generated images, that's not a big loss.)

We're not at all getting flooded by them. We're getting flooded with low-quality photographs of mundane things which we already have a thousand times over, not a handful of low-sized AI images that are usually among the first in their respective categories. An issue with requiring prompts is that people who have little experience with and apparently bias against AI images will delete (nominate or vote) them based on their flawed understanding of how these tools work in more sophisticated processes. And they're not necessarily easy to use if you a) have something specific in mind and b) that specific thing is not as simple as "a cat on a table". I'd be all for extensively encouraging prompts but that just leads to it getting nominated because it happens to have some objected or misunderstood term in it.

The general sense I got from reading this very long discussion (in which you were an active participant) is that many editors do feel there is an issue. I don't see the connection between an image having a prompt recorded and it being more likely to be nominated for deletion.

I didn't say anything about that. Re your second sentence I explained why in rough terms. Here is one concrete example but there are also many other cases where people would probably assume the text in the prompt exactly matches what the prompter meant to illustrate/visualize; for example because my explanations in that DR have not even been understood.

In your example, the fact you attached the prompt to your upload helped the community identify that the image was a derivative work (and thereby a copyright violation), and the community decided to delete it over your objection. Sorry, but that looks like a good thing.

No, it's not a derivative work. You just don't get how prompts are being used. Naming some examples in the prompt can be helpful if the tool doesn't get the concept otherwise and the image didn't look like the term in the prompt at all. Ignorance is not strength.

Only to report that User:HaeB noted in discussion that in Commons:AI-generated_media#Description, guidelines require the following:

Whenever you upload an AI-generated image (or other media file), you are expected to document the prompt used to generate the media in the file description, and identify the software that generated the media.

In reply to your feedback request, Sannita, I'm not able to access the Figma without a passcode, but the screenshot above looks good to me. Thanks for addressing this!

Change #1077782 had a related patch set uploaded (by Cparle; author: Cparle):

[mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard@master] [WIP] add AI prompt to "own work"

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1077782

Change #1077782 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/UploadWizard@master] Add AI prompt to "own work"

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1077782

Checked in commons beta and testwiki wmf.27.

commons wmf.26 without AI prompt field	testwiki wmf.27

"This entry is too long" error:

Note: @mfossati, @Sneha - one issue with AI-entry fields: the text cannot be selected by using a mouse, only with a keyboard. I checked other fields in UploadWizard (the same browsers, the same mouse) all other text field allow text selection with a mouse. Filed as T377377: UploadWizard: Own work - text in AI options text fields cannot be selected by mouse

@Sannita, looking at the latest design screenshots (I still can't access the Figma without a password), is there any way, short of making it required, that we can encourage people more strongly to enter the prompt?

For instance, we could put in gray text below the "Enter the prompt that was used" line something like "Images without prompts are more likely to be deleted". Or if someone tries to proceed without entering a prompt, a pop-up message could ask if they're sure they don't want to enter it. There could even be an "I don't have the prompt available" box that you'd have to check to proceed without entering it.

As I mentioned above (T357806#9570574), AI images aren't exactly a rare commodity on Commons, so in the grand tradeoff of how much friction to add to encourage quality contributions without deterring editors, we should lean toward adding more friction here.

Checked on commons wmf.27 - works as expected. The task might be closed as Resolved.

In T357806#10231733, @Sdkb wrote:

@Sannita, looking at the latest design screenshots (I still can't access the Figma without a password), is there any way, short of making it required, that we can encourage people more strongly to enter the prompt?

For instance, we could put in gray text below the "Enter the prompt that was used" line something like "Images without prompts are more likely to be deleted". Or if someone tries to proceed without entering a prompt, a pop-up message could ask if they're sure they don't want to enter it. There could even be an "I don't have the prompt available" box that you'd have to check to proceed without entering it.

As I mentioned above (T357806#9570574), AI images aren't exactly a rare commodity on Commons, so in the grand tradeoff of how much friction to add to encourage quality contributions without deterring editors, we should lean toward adding more friction here.

@Sdkb Thanks for the idea, but for the moment we want to see if the current wording is sufficient. We will analyze how many prompts are missing after the insertion of the new message, and if we see that prompts are still missing in large numbers, then we'll go for your suggestion. The checkbox is probably too much, I'm worried about the "extra click" that we will require users to do.

@Sannita, will this analysis come directly after you launch the feature? Is there a Phabricator ticket for it? My past experience is that once a project has concluded, it becomes significantly harder to get WMF attention on it, and I do not want that to happen here.

The checkbox is probably too much, I'm worried about the "extra click" that we will require users to do

There might be UX reasons that the checkbox wouldn't be the ideal implementation, but this isn't one. Again, I'm not sure you and the team are internalizing my feedback above about the current state of AI images on Commons. Our problem is not that Commons lacks AI images and needs more of them (as it is with real photos). Rather, it's that Commons is being flooded with low-quality AI images without prompts and where it's often unclear what the images are even of. If you haven't read the discussion I linked above (T357806#9571029), you should to get a sense of this. As proposed, no one who is actually providing a prompt would have to make an extra click; the only people who would are those not providing a prompt. If having to make an extra click creates enough friction that someone decides not to complete the upload, that's no big loss to us — the image would have been significantly less valuable to us without the prompt, there's a high likelihood that someone careless enough to omit the prompt didn't put much effort into crafting it (resulting in a low-quality image), and if we do need an image in the area it's trivial to generate it. If the checkbox causes, say, a third of users who didn't initially provide the prompt to quit, a third to complete the upload without the prompt, and a third to provide the prompt, that's an excellent tradeoff.

I think possibly the recent change to uw.deed.OwnWork.js is perhaps now breaking the case in which the upwiz_licensename preference is a custom value. For example, I've got that preference set to a template (which has worked fine for years), but it's now ending up with this sort of thing: |author=[[User:Samwilson|{{User:Samwilson/photographer|camera=}}]] which isn't correct. Maybe that preference isn't meant to be arbitrary wikitext, but if that's true then it should say so. Maybe this is a case of XKCD #1172.

In T357806#10240111, @Sdkb wrote:

@Sannita, will this analysis come directly after you launch the feature? Is there a Phabricator ticket for it? My past experience is that once a project has concluded, it becomes significantly harder to get WMF attention on it, and I do not want that to happen here.

Not yet, but we can set up one, and subscribe you to it (and others who want, if needed).

If having to make an extra click creates enough friction that someone decides not to complete the upload, that's no big loss to us — the image would have been significantly less valuable to us without the prompt, there's a high likelihood that someone careless enough to omit the prompt didn't put much effort into crafting it (resulting in a low-quality image), and if we do need an image in the area it's trivial to generate it. If the checkbox causes, say, a third of users who didn't initially provide the prompt to quit, a third to complete the upload without the prompt, and a third to provide the prompt, that's an excellent tradeoff.

I see the point, and I'll raise it in the next meeting. I cannot promise you anything about it, it really depends on design decisions.

Not yet, but we can set up one, and subscribe you to it (and others who want, if needed).

That would be great; thanks!

In T357806#10241454, @Samwilson wrote:

I think possibly the recent change to uw.deed.OwnWork.js is perhaps now breaking the case in which the upwiz_licensename preference is a custom value. For example, I've got that preference set to a template (which has worked fine for years), but it's now ending up with this sort of thing: |author=[[User:Samwilson|{{User:Samwilson/photographer|camera=}}]] which isn't correct. Maybe that preference isn't meant to be arbitrary wikitext, but if that's true then it should say so. Maybe this is a case of XKCD #1172.

@Samwilson - I see the issue, but I'm not quite sure what input from UploadWizard caused it. Is this mwe-upwiz-license-custom field ("Enter a different license in wikitext form" )? Should it be a different phab ticket?
Btw, XKCD #1172 is so realistic.

I see the issue, but I'm not quite sure what input from UploadWizard caused it.

The value from the user preference used to be added just as-is without any changes, but now is being added with a wrapping link:

		this.authorInput = new OO.ui.HiddenInputWidget( {
			name: 'author',
			value: '[[User:' + mw.config.get( 'wgUserName' ) + '|' + prefAuthName + ']]'
		} );

I'm not sure if that change is actually required for the changes to the AI 'own work' stuff, so maybe it could just be reverted to value: prefAuthName? That patch also removed the checking for square brackets and braces in the supplied value (which would mean the link could still be added, but not if someone uses a template or their own link). There are lots of different ways to format author names.

Is this mwe-upwiz-license-custom field ("Enter a different license in wikitext form" )?

No, it's the author field, the preference is upwiz_licensename, labelled "Author's name".

Should it be a different phab ticket?

Probably! I've created T377636: UploadWizard: Unable to use wikitext in "Author's name" preference.

In T357806#10243755, @Samwilson wrote:

Probably! I've created T377636: UploadWizard: Unable to use wikitext in "Author's name" preference.

Thank you, @Samwilson! Added the task to the team's Triage column.

In T357806#10243010, @Sdkb wrote:

Not yet, but we can set up one, and subscribe you to it (and others who want, if needed).

That would be great; thanks!

@Sannita, has this been set up yet?

In T357806#10265404, @Sdkb wrote:

In T357806#10243010, @Sdkb wrote:

Not yet, but we can set up one, and subscribe you to it (and others who want, if needed).

That would be great; thanks!

@Sannita, has this been set up yet?

Not yet, I'll remember people tomorrow about it.