This ticket is meant to gather the work required to offer people who are editing using VE suggestions for how they might improve content they did not add/affect.
=== Loose notes
- //"AI that helps editors address problems with Wikipedia is welcome (if it works). We already use it, in various places, to varying degrees of success, and to relatively little pushback. ."// | via @asilvering ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#c-Asilvering-20250604192500-Levivich-20250604191700))
- //"A next-level deployment would be for AI to read the sources of the article, summarize those, and then compare its summary to the written article, and post suggestions for changes on the talk page. A next-next-level deployment would be for AI to suggest new sources for the articles, or to read and summarize sources that aren't in the article, and then post edit suggestions to the talk page. AFAIK AI isn't ready for this level yet, but the first two suggestions above could probably be done today with reasonable accuracy using large and small language models. I hope the WMF keeps developing, experimenting, testing, and iterating on these approaches."// | via @levivich ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#c-Levivich-20250604191700-EBlackorby-WMF-20250602182000))
- //"[[ https://phab.wmfusercontent.org/file/data/ahc6573d3npvdptcpcoe/PHID-FILE-ykp34zbh2bjpvdndidqk/image.png | This ]] is what we want. AI that supports editors. The human makes the decisions, the AI can only propose improvements but is incapable of doing anything."// | via @Polygnotus ([source](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MMiller_(WMF)#c-Polygnotus-20250605053100-Polygnotus-20250604005400))
- //"A few months ago I obtained an AI generated list of typos on Wikipedia. I went through much of it manually, fixed a bunch of typos, made some suggestions for additional searches for AWB typo fixing, but ignored a whole bunch of AI errors that were either wrong or Americanisations."// | [WereSpielChequers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-WereSpielChequers-20250529132100-Discussion_of_Tamzin's_proposed_statement) describing how they're using AI to identify ways to improve existing Wikipedia content.
- For volunteers to be motivated to author Check suggestions, they'll need evidence that doing so results in people seeing said Checks and ultimately, acting upon them
- We ought to be open-minded about what can potentially cause a suggestion to be shown? //E.g. do suggestions need to be gated behind someone explicitly asking for them to be revealed? Might suggestions be shown in an existing or yet-to-be-introduced moment (e.g. post-save)?//
- What do we mean by "Suggestions" in this context? More broadly, we need to become clear about the vocabulary around this system.
-- At least two internal meanings: 1) //"Show me Checks applied to content I didn't write."//, 2) //"Show me low priority Checks for content I did write."//, and 3) //The moment in which the Check is shown (mid-Edit, Pre-Save, etc.)//
--- Need to avert confusion with Growth's existing work on Suggested Edits.
- To what extent does it need to be clear who authored the Check? //An AI, a volunteer, Wikipedia/the platform..."/
=== References
- Screenshot showing how @Polygnotus uses a userscript while viewing Wikipedia to identify ways to improve the Wikipedia articles they are viewing:
-- {F61689574}
- {F60813320}
- [WP:AutoWikiBrowser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser)
- 11 April 2025 via @DLynch: “Suggestion mode” — existing edit checks applied to the entire article, not just your own changes.
-- {F59332596}