Talk:Future Audiences/Experiment:Add a Fact

Add A Fact Feedback?

If you're here, you likely have something to say about Add A Fact.

We really want your feedback!! Please do share with any concerns, thoughts or ideas for the future development of the tool. I've laid out some question on topics we think are important (see the topics below), or feel free to start a new topic or find the general feedback section all the way at the bottom. FNavas-WMF (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the concept is great, it makes it easier for users to propose constructive article changes and could substantially increase article quality, completeness, and especially how up-to-date articles are. It would also be useful without any LLM features. An issue is that few people install extra addons for things they do relatively rarely so it may be best if it was also available as some sort of talk page-integrated or Web UI feature. An issue is that too few users actually check talk pages and close or reply to or implement change proposals. A personalized tasks dashboard as proposed here could help with this and such specific talk page issues would neatly integrate with it as it could display these open talk page requests to relevant contributors so they are actually read or implemented and can be checked in quick succession. It also helps users to come back to their unaddressed open edit requests so to e.g. add things themselves if nobody did so, enables searching this type of edits, and standardizes these edit requests (I previously used a standardized section header for this). For example, I think it would be good to distinguish between general talk page discussions and talk page posts that are specific Issues (distinguished into unsolved and solved/obsolete thereof). Basically, I find it interesting and useful mainly because it makes easier to and standardizes proposing integration of data and I come across to many scientific studies with data that is missing in articles to update them all by myself and it's similar for new contributors for whom it's often better if a more experienced contributor checks & integrates the fact/data/info they found. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice presentation this week! which reliability list are you using?

I believe you mentioned using a list like reliability.js to assess the source domain, but don't remember which one. –SJ talk  10:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Good Q! We're using a gadget developed by User:Headbomb (User:Headbomb/unreliable) which aggregates a number of onwiki lists of potentially problematic sources. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

On the use of AI to support editing practices

You may have noticed the assessments under each article suggested by Add A Fact. Those are generated by an LLM. Did you find those helpful? What other ways could an LLM make contributing to Wikipedia via a tool like this faster or easier? FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On the UI/UX of the extension as it is

How did you find using the extension? What did you like/dislike the most? Would you recommend any additional or removal of features? Does it fit into your usual workflow of finding/adding new facts to Wikipedia? FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your sharing in the Wikimania. Perhaps it could not only allow users to leave suggestions on the talk page, but also encourage users to add the fact to articles themselves in the future? Additionally, perhaps suggestions could be posted on the same page (similar to the dark mode error reporting page), rather than different talk pages, and then send a notification on the article's talk page? Just my two cents. SCP-2000 16:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback. Maybe there are different level of the tool? one for people who want to directly post and another for people who just want to suggest to talk page/somewhere else? You think one single destination for things from Add A Fact is better instead of any talk page? Can you expand on why? I was scared to create ONE MORE backlog of work FNavas-WMF (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@FNavas-WMF: Hello, thanks for your questions. Here is my suggestions:

1. When users first use the tool, there should be a notice reminding them that they can edit directly. They can either choose to edit by themselves or submit an edit request. This approach not only follows the spirit of Be bold, but also reduces the number of edit requests and avoids the backlog of work. I think the idea of having different levels of the tool is interesting, but I am concerned that it might make the tool more complicated for users, especially newcomers.
2. There be a single destination for receiving requests, along with sending notifications to the relevant talk page. Having a single destination allows interested editors (who are willing to help resolve these requests) to easily monitor requests and thus avoid a backlog. Just delivering requests to several talk pages separately only makes the backlog less visible, but it will not resolve the issue of backlog.

SCP-2000 00:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I found it easy to install and use, seems pretty intuitive. Very cool, kudos to the creators!

When it creates the reference in Wikitext, should it include the ref and not-ref that are needed for inserting in the article? Some contributors/editors might need it.

It would also be good to cut down the line breaks that appear in the created Talk page section. ProfGray (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

On where suggestions for new claims/references should be housed

As of now, for the MVP, Add A Fact sends additions to the chosen article talk page. We recognize this may not be the best place for new content to be reviewed, moderated, or incorporated into an article. What could a better store of added facts look and work like? FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On how to handle sources deemed semi- or non-reliable

With the exception of URLs that are blocked from being added to English Wikipedia, you can use Add A Fact to add suggested new facts from any source on the Internet. We wanted to let the human users make the decisions as to where to add claims and sources from – both due to the complexity and context-dependent nature of sourcing guidelines on Wikipedia, and to avoid the perception that Wikipedia is censored or biased. The tool currently provides a warning if a source is known to be problematic according to the perennial sources list and other onwiki lists of unreliable sources.What do you think about this workflow? How else could we help support quality additions? FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I tested this and it worked on a deprecated source (Jihad Watch) but it did not work with a more complicated case: ADL as deprecated on Israel and Zionism topics. ProfGray (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

On opening up a tool like this to the internet at-large

A potential future for Add A Fact is to make a tool like this available to non-Wikipedians or new/casual contributors. This could increase the volume of contributions, but without careful guardrails, we know this risks become too noisy and/or abusive. Could opening up the ability to suggest new claims/references to more people be helpful to en.wiki? How could/should the workflow differ from what you see today in Add A Fact if the tool were geared toward a non-Wikipedian audience? FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Other general feedback

Any thoughts welcome here!

FNavas-WMF (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's an issue that it's only available for Chrome (maybe also Chromium?) but not Firefox which is open source. Will this change in the forseeable future? Maybe the addon could be quickly converted to a firefox extension if whatever framework/tools used for it doesn't already allow that by itself. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: FYI: Future_Audiences/Experiment:Add_a_Fact/FAQ#Does_Add_A_Fact_support_Firefox? SCP-2000 16:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! due to some manifest 3 API's that Firefox doesn't support – could you please link the corresponding code issue(s) at Mozilla and if they don't exist create them? Alternatively or additionally, a link to more info about what would need to be done to get it working on Firefox would also be useful. Because as of now Chrome users are somewhat put at an advantage instead of facilitating Wikipedia editors to use or keep using the open source Web browser even if this currently is only an experiment / experimental. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Because as of now Chrome users are somewhat put at an advantage instead of facilitating Wikipedia editors to use or keep using the open source Web browser even if this currently is only an experiment / experimental. You may see the related reply by Johan (who is responsible for community Engagement in Future Audiences project) on the diff blog post.

Additionally, it is recommended that add the Johan's reply into the FAQ. Thanks. SCP-2000 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I added to Firefox and it seems to work fine. ProfGray (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@FNavas-WMF Any idea what happened at en:Talk:ITER#Add A Fact: "ITER Pressure Suppression System performance"? The "fact" is the title of the paper it listed as it's source, which is a sentence fragment, not a fact. In addition, despite the source being a page at iop.org, the "wikitext snippet" is a citation to en:User:DErenrich-WMF/Add A Fact Experiment that quotes a random portion of that page starting and ending in the middle of a sentence. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Similar experience at [1]. I don't think this is fully cooked enough yet for use in article talk space on en.wiki. VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Future Audiences/Experiment:Citation Needed?

I installed this extension as Citation Needed. How come it turned into Add a Fact? --魔琴 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @魔琴: we officially ended the Citation Needed experiment a few months ago in order to start this new Add A Fact experiment – however, if you'd still like to use Citation Needed, you can find a stable version of it in Chrome here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/devconsole/69dd4899-ad76-4f8d-8a57-40facf2412b0/pcdjibaokbnmanojoiaaahmffcpbajof/edit We noticed that most Citation Needed users had stopped using it, but if you're still finding it valuable, I'd be curious to hear how/if it helps you navigate information online! MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@MPinchuk (WMF): Thanks. It just popped into my head and I thought I'd check if there were any updates, before I found that it had completely changed, so I came here to ask what had happened. ;) --魔琴 (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Category or way to track edits from Add a Fact

I searched Wikipedia for the use of Add a Fact with this search effort. I found a dozen instances so far. I checked edit histories of the first four and they did not seem to result in any article edits with the cited facts.

I created a Category for instances when an editor applies the Add a Fact info to an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_Add_a_Fact_usage This would then help us track the impact of Add a Fact on articles. Let me know if you'd rather this Category be deleted or renamed.

So far, the category includes this article I've edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Ohio_Issue_1 Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @ProfGray! We've been using this Toolforge hashtag tracking tool to look at talk page suggestions added with this tool: https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/?query=addafact&project=en.wikipedia.org&startdate=&enddate=&search_type=or&user= (every edit is saved with the #addafact hashtag and this tool looks for/visualizes edit streams involving any hashtag). You can see there has been a bit more activity recently and it's a pretty interesting list of additions :) MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that's cool, lots of new uses today. However -- IINM you're only tracking the Talk page.

To assess the experiment, we'd also want to know whether any of the suggested edits get put into the article, right?

In other news, there's a discussion to delete the category to track such Add a Fact edits. I suppose deletion makes sense, though I wish there were an alternative. ProfGray (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The next monthly Future Audiences video call: October 31, 16:00 UTC

(Copied over from Talk:Future Audiences since it specifically relates to this project. You can ask any questions or leave comments about this call on the main talk page.)

Hi all, this is announcement of the next monthly hour-long Future Audiences video call – a space where anyone interested in this work can come learn, ask questions, and give input on the work the Future Audiences team are doing around AI or social media experiments, or talk about their own related initiatives. Please feel free to turn up – we're happy for anyone who wants to come talk or listen to us. You don't need to have done anything specific within these fields.

More details:

• When: 16:00 UTC Thursday October 31
• Where: Google Meet (works in most popular desktop browsers) – please email futureaudienceswikimedia.org to get the link!
• Recorded? Yes

Agenda:

• Add a Fact – insights from testing by over 85 Wikipedians
• Short video – early launch data from TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube

To register contact:

futureaudienceswikimedia.org – we'll send you a link to the call.

Slides, recordings and notes from previous meetings can be found at Future Audiences/Community discussions. We're looking forward to seeing you or hearing from you. Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)