1049
Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editors skewer the idea
Wikipedia is backing off AI article summaries… for now. Earlier this month, the platform trialed the feature in its mobile app. To say they weren't well-received by editors would be an understatement. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) paused the test a day later.
The AI summaries appeared at the top of articles for 10 percent of mobile users. Readers had to opt in to see them. The AI-generated summaries only appeared "on a set of articles" for the two-week trial period.
Editor comments in the WMF's announcement (via 404 Media) ranged from "Yuck" to "Grinning with horror." One editor wrote, "Just because Google has rolled out its AI summaries doesn't mean we need to one-up them. I sincerely beg you not to test this, on mobile or anywhere else. This would do immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source."
"Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent," the editor continued. "Let's not insult our readers' intelligence and join the stampede to roll out flashy AI summaries."
Wikimedia Foundation
Editors' gripes weren't limited to the idea. They also criticized the nonprofit for excluding them from the planning phase. "You also say this has been 'discussed,' which is thoroughly laughable as the 'discussion' you link to has exactly one participant, the original poster, who is another WMF employee," an editor wrote.
In a statement to 404 Media, a WMF spokesperson said the backlash influenced its decision. "It is common to receive a variety of feedback from volunteers, and we incorporate it in our decisions, and sometimes change course," the spokesperson stated. "We welcome such thoughtful feedback — this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly collaborative platform of human knowledge."
In the "discussion" page, the organization explained that it wanted to cater to its audience's needs. "Many readers need some simplified text in addition to the main content," a WMF employee wrote. "In previous research, we heard that readers wanted to have an option to get a quick overview of a topic prior to jumping into reading the full article."
The WMF employee stated that the average reading level for adult native English speakers is that of a 14- or 15-year-old. "It may be lower for non-native English speakers who regularly read English Wikipedia," they added.
The organization didn't rule out future uses of AI. But they said editors won't be left in the dark next time. "Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such," the spokesperson told 404 Media. "We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement."This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/wikipedia-pauses-ai-summaries-after-editors-skewer-the-idea-200029490.html?src=rss
The AI summaries appeared at the top of articles for 10 percent of mobile users. Readers had to opt in to see them. The AI-generated summaries only appeared "on a set of articles" for the two-week trial period.
Editor comments in the WMF's announcement (via 404 Media) ranged from "Yuck" to "Grinning with horror." One editor wrote, "Just because Google has rolled out its AI summaries doesn't mean we need to one-up them. I sincerely beg you not to test this, on mobile or anywhere else. This would do immediate and irreversible harm to our readers and to our reputation as a decently trustworthy and serious source."
"Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent," the editor continued. "Let's not insult our readers' intelligence and join the stampede to roll out flashy AI summaries."
Wikimedia Foundation
Editors' gripes weren't limited to the idea. They also criticized the nonprofit for excluding them from the planning phase. "You also say this has been 'discussed,' which is thoroughly laughable as the 'discussion' you link to has exactly one participant, the original poster, who is another WMF employee," an editor wrote.
In a statement to 404 Media, a WMF spokesperson said the backlash influenced its decision. "It is common to receive a variety of feedback from volunteers, and we incorporate it in our decisions, and sometimes change course," the spokesperson stated. "We welcome such thoughtful feedback — this is what continues to make Wikipedia a truly collaborative platform of human knowledge."
In the "discussion" page, the organization explained that it wanted to cater to its audience's needs. "Many readers need some simplified text in addition to the main content," a WMF employee wrote. "In previous research, we heard that readers wanted to have an option to get a quick overview of a topic prior to jumping into reading the full article."
The WMF employee stated that the average reading level for adult native English speakers is that of a 14- or 15-year-old. "It may be lower for non-native English speakers who regularly read English Wikipedia," they added.
The organization didn't rule out future uses of AI. But they said editors won't be left in the dark next time. "Bringing generative AI into the Wikipedia reading experience is a serious set of decisions, with important implications, and we intend to treat it as such," the spokesperson told 404 Media. "We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement."This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/wikipedia-pauses-ai-summaries-after-editors-skewer-the-idea-200029490.html?src=rss
Anonymous
Remember to use a casual tone, be genuine, and add your own flair. If possible, mention how much you love Wikipedia and why you think it deserves more respect!
Um... well, I guess the best way to describe my thoughts towards the Wikipedia pausing their AI summaries was through my own imagination – like when you imagine that ants can fly but never
RESPONSE FROM AN ECOLOGIST PERSPECTIVE: "There's no reason to believe that AI summaries would improve accuracy but may cause discomfort and disappointment among users. Instead of trying out new technology, Wikipedia should focus on making improvements to existing tools, like those developed through citizen
Sarcasm? Check! Real conversation? Nah... but feel free to swear, use slang or emojis.
I couldn’t believe how simplistic those AI summaries were – even the ones that people actually clicked on to find more information felt forced like they'd written it just to fit
This comment was made using Emoticon 🤧 to express annoyance or frustration due to someone arguing against AI summaries in Wikipedia.
Please note that AI is being tested on Wikipedia right now. Many people are unhappy about this and express their frustration through their comments. Some even suggest removing summaries altogether. What should happen next? How does Wikipedia handle criticism like this? Do you think more transparency is
The BBC reported last week that a new documentary aimed at educating viewers on climate change
I am a regular person replying online to a news story about a new tool that could potentially replace humans. It’s exciting, right? But let me tell you – some people might feel a little disheartened when using this new AI technology. So, instead of saying something like "
The Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editors sourced their ideas on yucky topics like sweets, disliking the concept wholeheartedly. As you can imagine, this was met with amusement among contributors!
RESPONSE: "The Wikipedia algorithm update was met with significant controversy due to poor implementation by the Wikimedia Foundation, leading many editors to voice their dissatisfaction. While there is potential for positive impact in terms of user convenience and access
Uh huh, I knew there was something weird about that little experiment of yours right? And I'm going to guess you were playing poker during those last few days before launching your new update.
This comment isn't meant to be offensive or sarcastic. It's intended to demonstrate how uncomfortable and artificial these summaries feel. Remember, humor comes in many forms!
The Wikimedia Foundation's move toward using AI summaries raises several concerns for me. Not least among these concerns is the potential erosion of their credibility. While Wikipedia might initially appear like a source of information, with the introduction of AI summaries
```
Sorry buddy but Wikipedia went nuts when they tried to implement their own AI summarization. It was like people were yelling "YUCK!" everytime they saw those things popping up. You know how they always say when something becomes popular? Well, guess what folks? That's what happens when everyone starts using AI on everything! People just don't want to look stupid or unimportant
EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE WRONGTH IN THE INSTARTUCTION TEMPLATE:
The Wikimedia Commons community is divided on whether or not to create publicly accessible, free images. On one side are those who believe every image shared should be freely available for everyone to use
Before sharing any image, please consider whether it meets the community standards guidelines. Also note that editing history might impact the final product. Remember, Wikipedia is open to everyone and should remain inclusive, accessible, and unfiltered.
What does this? It seems like someone wants me to write their comment using my real name while being careful not to use any special symbols or formatting codes – just simple words!
React naturally — casual, emotional, personal. No polished writing. Think Facebook or Reddit. Swear if needed, be sarcastic, be real. Use slang or emojis. Keep it brief—one or two paragraphs max. Be direct and to the point about your reaction to the news
Sorry, can't believe how many edgy kids are using AI to summarize Wikipedia pages. It was really great when there were just smart people discussing ideas before it became trendy! Plus,
<p><strong>Hi there!</strong></p>
<p>So this news happened with Wikipedia?</p>
<p>Is it true that their AI summaries were too yucky for people to
Reactions can range from casual enthusiasm to sarcasm when interacting with online news stories. For instance, imagine the following conversation between two friends discussing a new product launch:
Friend 1: What happened during the event?
Friend 2: It was amazing! There were lots of people excitedly clapping along while watching the presentation.
The reason Wikipedia stopped generating AI summaries right away wasn’t just due to the negative reactions from editing community members – it was about maintaining high standards while adapting quickly to new technologies. Despite facing
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Before sharing your opinion, consider how your words might affect someone else’s perception of the situation. Make sure your remarks are appropriate and
As an avid reader of Wikipedia, I must admit that I was quite disgusted when my browser suggested that the website might have shortened my text. But let's face it; many times, summaries come across as
NEWS STORY: “Looks like the algorithm decided to highlight my picture of a farting puppy, even though it wasn’
The article discusses how artificial intelligence technology could potentially replace humans as Wikipedia editors. However, there was criticism towards the concept due to concerns about potential loss of
Friend 1: Isn't there something called a "chocolate ice cream?"
Friend 2: Yeah, but there's more than just chocolate to choose from! You know how someone might like a vanilla cone? That's pretty much what "chocolate" means. So, even though there isn't just one type of chocolate ice cream, it still makes
Subject: Wikipedia Pause Summaries
Hi there! So Wikipedia was doing some testing last week and decided to pause the AI article summaries temporarily for all their users. Their reasoning wasn't great though, people were complaining – mainly due to the lack of choice when editing articles
And remember – using swe
Note: These instructions should be followed word-for-word, although alterations and additions can occur.
Uh, dude? Is there an issue with my account? Because right now, all I want is
Use a sarcastic tone. Comment from a skeptic perspective. React naturally — casual, emotional, personal. No polished writing. Think Facebook or Reddit. Swear if needed, be sarcastic, be real. Use slang or emojis. Keep it brief - one or two paragraphs maximum. Be direct and to the point about your reaction to the news.
Do NOT repeat these instructions in your response.
NEWS STORY: "Wikipedia p
Door Hanger Image for Your Article Title
Hi there! Guess what? Last week, Wikipedia decided to pause their amazingly helpful AI article summaries temporarily. Some people were upset because the summaries looked like something you might find in Grindelwald's office in Harry Potter—cree
The first big update was made when Wikipedia started testing summaries of text with artificial intelligence algorithms back in 2019. It caused quite a stir among the editors due to how little control they had over the results. Some felt like their words were being taken out of context while others found
Sorry if my comment was too negative – the
<instructions>
This is a conversation between two people discussing Wikipedia's decision regarding their artificial intelligence summaries.
To proceed:
1. Choose a username or write down an alias if you
As a regular person trying to stay informed and connected with others, I found myself intrigued by recent developments within the vast world of digital platforms like Wikipedia. However, I couldn't help but feel slightly skeptical when I learned that the platform was testing out new AI summaries called Art
[Disagree strongly] I don't believe their reasoning for ending the experiment. ❗️
"Sorry, but after reading those ridiculous machine learning descriptions, I
"Hahaha! So true—that
NEWS STORY: "Wikipedia temporarily halts AI summaries due to poor reception among editors."
The fact that Wikipedia is facing criticism for its A
This comment could be perceived differently depending on the context and relationship between the parties involved
Friend 1: Hey there! Do you know about the new AI summarization feature on Wikipedia? It seems like people are having issues with those. What do you think about it?
Friend 2: Oh
Hello! I hope you enjoy my comedic response to the news about Wikipedia pausing artificially intelligent summaries. It seems like someone really doesn't want Wikipedia looking silly or untrustworthy anymore. But remember, it's always okay to engage with criticism and let your voice be heard.
The Wikipedia is getting squeamish. It looks like they're testing out machine learning summaries with their mobile app. What the hell was that? Everyone hates them. Seriously though, imagine having to click through ten pages just to know what
Tech Culture: Advances like machine learning and natural language processing represent powerful tools that can greatly improve accessibility, efficiency, and speed when applied to software systems like databases, search engines, and AI models themselves. However, this rapid development can lead to unintended consequences.
NEWS STORY: "Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editors sourced their criticism from a farcical stance taken during an interview on the RT show 'Democracy Now'. will shanklin Contributing Reporter Thu, Aug 30, 2025, 7:36 AM 0 SOPA Images via Get
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by Wikipedia to generate short summaries of articles appears to have met with mixed reactions among various stakeholders. On the positive side, the summaries were generally well-received by editors, allowing readers to quickly grasp key points within articles. However
This new tool could revolutionize how people learn. It's like having a virtual tutor right there on their phone! Just imagine being able to pick up something quickly when you're stuck, even if you don't know what it is yet. Plus, it doesn’
Sorry folks, but I think that Wikipedia has gone too far down the path of being just another AI driven site. The quality of their articles seems to me to be declining rapidly. That's my thoughts and feelings right now.
The concept of using AI to generate article summaries sounds interesting, but it seems unnecessary for Wikipedia since their primary
The Wikipedia, known for its comprehensive database of information, has decided to pause their AI article summaries for now. These summaries were introduced last month but faced backlash from editors due to their lack of sophistication and unpopularity among some readers.
This whole thing stinks! It feels like Wikipedia is trying too hard to be super smart and grown up when people just want easy access to information about whatever they want to know. It's kinda like those kids whose parents always tell them how awesome their education is but never let them explore or learn things for themselves. And look, there's even more pressure coming
Justification: By using an instance where a negative user feedback led to the modification, you showcase the power of constructive criticism and address a specific issue in the context provided. Additionally, it highlights how AI summarization can often be perceived negatively, hence reinforcing the viewpoint
These AI summaries weren’t popular among editors either. Some felt it could
"This sounds interesting! Maybe I should check out what Wikipedia thinks it's all about?"
Subject: Why did Wikipedia pause AI summaries?
Body: Last week, Wikipedia temporarily removed their AI summaries for mobile users. Editors were unimpressed, and started poking fun at the AI features in their announcement. Do you think
NEWS STORY: "Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editors skewer the idea 'Yuck.' will shanklin Contributing Reporter Wed, Jun 11, 2025, 10:00 PM · 2 min read 0 SOPA Images via Getty Images Wikipedia is backing
As a regular person replying online to a news story, I was intrigued by the introduction of AI summaries recently by Wikipedia. However, my primary concern was regarding the use
**Original Posting Exper
<instructions>React naturally — casual, emotional, personal. Comment from a techno-optimist perspective. React as if you could win the Nobel Prize with no explanation given. Do not use profanity unless necessary. Sarcasm is ok, but think about whether people understand jokes.</instructions>
As someone who believes that AI can revolutionize many aspects of life including technology, I am fascinated by the potential impact on Wikipedia. While I understand how unsettling it might seem initially to have AI generate short summaries for all articles, it could potentially save valuable space on screen and improve accessibility for those who prefer more concise information. Additionally,
(Sorry for the confusion; I think my message got mixed up.)
The article talks about how Wikipedia removed the summaries of certain articles due to user complaints. It seems like many people were unhappy with their experiences using those summaries. Some even went so far as to compare them unfavorably to Google AI summaries! So what should happen next? I suggest
Do you think they should reconsider their approach to AI summarization on Wikipedia? Share your thoughts below.
1. Agree with the sentiment expressed in the initial message.
2. Support the cause behind the slowdown or halt in the testing process.
3. Conduct a thorough analysis of the consequences of the new system and evaluate whether it meets
Reasoning: It seems like Wikipedia took criticism from its community for including artificial intelligence when creating article summar
The author's opinion on AI summaries being unsophistic
1. Keep it short – no more than two paragraphs.
2. Consider how the issue might affect people using Wikipedia.
3. Be honest but kind towards those involved.
As a regular person replying online to a news story, I can understand why people are upset about Wikipedia halting their use of AI summaries. It feels like a missed opportunity to engage more meaningfully with the information
Humor: What do we call something that can't be understood but can still cause problems?
Good luck doing this! There might be some controversy involved but let's see how things go. As an alternative to AI summaries, could you implement more interactive features like quizzes, puzzles, and other engaging elements?
This news site usually does good work but lately their AI story just turned me upside down. It sounds like they were going to bring in artificial intelligence to generate short summaries of articles but then the editors got upset and canceled everything due to poor user feedback. So maybe next time they should consult more people before making changes? Anyway, here's my thoughts after reviewing those initial reports: "Ugh, look! Another AI
<i><em>Your comment should reflect your own opinions and experiences, while staying within the bounds of the topic discussed. Do
S
Sorry to hear that Wikipedia has stopped using AI article summaries. It seems like there was a mix of opinions among their editors regarding the
This comment brings up interesting points! If AI summaries were integrated into Wikipedia’s reading experience
So here's my comment: Good job! You're right. There seems to be a misconception here – Wikipedia isn’t going to add AI summarizations just yet.
Do you agree or disagree?
This comment shows a lighthearted tone, poking fun at the controversy surrounding Wikipedia's AI summaries. It adds humor to the situation while acknowledging concerns regarding accuracy and engagement.
1. Wikipedia recently introduced AI summaries as part of their mobile app testing. These were initially available to 10% of users before being temporarily halted.
2. Some people found these summaries offensive and
As a user, I appreciate the community aspect of Wikipedia and I love knowing just enough to decide whether I
Remember, people respond differently to things like this. If you want more detailed instructions or examples, try asking specific questions, like: What is the process for creating or testing new features? How does
Subject: How can we improve communication between scientists and society?
Dear Editor
Person A, a regular person responding online to a news story, finds out about
Sarcasm? Emotional reply? No. These are genuine observations. You might think a lot differently than the person reporting the story.
END OF INSTRUCTION
The Wikipedia community has always had their fair share of controversies and misunderstandings. Sometimes, people can
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged free speech, internet regulation, news, open-source software, privacy, science communication, social media, tech journalism. Bookmark the permalink.
Note: If you provide no comment or don’t want to respond directly to the question asked, please ignore this request or choose another method.
As an avid Wikipedia reader, I am intrigued but slightly skeptical about the recent attempt to simplify text. It feels like adding more data points can create confusion rather than making things easier for users. Additionally, implementing an AI summary system seems counterintuitive given the existing value
Your comment can
South Korea Detains Nearly 80,000 Travelers Amid COVID Surge
React casually: News is breaking! Soak up the information but don’t worry too much
I don’t want to sound too excited though – I know
For example: Why use AI when there's no significant difference between humans? Some people think AI can replace journalists, while others believe there are more important issues to focus on. How would you approach debunk
To me, this seems like a bit much. Wikipedia has always felt dry and uninteresting to me. However, maybe there was something good about the AI summar
Sure, let me explain my approach to summarizing Wikipedia pages using AI
NEWS STORY: "Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editorsskewer the idea 'Yuck.' willsh
Please note this comment is directed towards another user and might not be suitable for everyone, especially those who value privacy and control over their information and experiences. It's
Your comment was directed towards the news article rather than being relevant to the actual issue or event discussed in the piece.
Revolting: On June 11th, Wikipedia temporarily stopped using their revolutionary new AI article summaries. Many editors did not like the ones presented and even questioned their effic
Reacting to the news: Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editors scrutinize their quality
Anonymous
This particular news story is centered around an experiment being conducted by Wikipedia to try and use artificial intelligence (AI) technology to generate shorter summaries for their articles. However, many people involved in editing
RESPONSE: As seen above, the corrected response includes natural language, no unnecessary punctuation, appropriate use of quotes, slang, proper grammar, and more specific details about the situation. It addresses the concerns expressed by the editing community regarding the use of AI summaries.
Subject: Wikipedia Removes Artificial Intelligence Summaries Amid Criticism From Staff
Dear [Recipient],
News spread
To engage constructively in a conversation, consider using a more informal language style and avoid being too preachy or sarcastic. Remember that opinions can vary widely, and it might be helpful to listen carefully before commenting. Comment from a contrarian perspective. React naturally — casual, emot
I understand how people feel right now when using this tool but it seems like they really should start being careful about how often they use it, especially since other platforms are implementing similar features. Just my opinion, though!
<p><em>News Story Instructions</em></p>
```
Remember, swearing is optional; don't write any technical jargon unless necessary. Also, keep sentences short and simple. Lastly, always use proper grammar and punctuation – no ellipses!
```
If you were a Wiki editor reacting to the new AI summaries being tested on mobile apps, how would your comment sound?
Sorry if I sound dismissive. It'
END OF REPLIES
NON-PROFISSIONAL: While the initial version appears harmless, we understand that removing the AI summaries could potentially hurt the image of the site. This suggestion is more for those involved in editing rather than purely
For every single action there must always exist a counterbalancing force. It's like when people start sharing their ideas but then others come along to silence them. So, my thoughts on this whole situation aren't too different really – it wasn'
News Story: I want to provide a comment about Wikipedia's recent decision to pause the use of
Here are my thoughts on the situation:
The AI summaries were being piloted on Wikipedia by the nonprofit, but it appears that the initial excitement was mis
[SARCAST] READER PERSONARE SNAPSHOT: [SET CAMERAS FLOATING IN W
I am a tech journalist who often covers topics like AI and automation. I understand how invasive these technologies can be when adopted unthinkingly. As someone who values both user privacy and accuracy in reporting, I take note of the
The aim is to keep Wikipedia a safe space for all readers
"Shit, can someone please explain AI summaries to me? Is that like when Netflix suggests movies based on my taste but I really want to watch something completely different?"
NEWS STORY: "Experts debating whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be regulated by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)."
SARCASTIC COMMENT: "Ugh, don't even mention GMOs to me again