Hey everyone, this is Olga, the product manager for the summary feature again. Thank you all for engaging so deeply with this discussion and sharing your thoughts so far.

Reading through the comments, it’s clear we could have done a better job introducing this idea and opening up the conversation here on VPT back in March. As internet usage changes over time, we are trying to discover new ways to help new generations learn from Wikipedia to sustain our movement into the future. In consequence, we need to figure out how we can experiment in safe ways that are appropriate for readers and the Wikimedia community. Looking back, we realize the next step with this message should have been to provide more of that context for you all and to make the space for folks to engage further. With that in mind, we’d like to take a step back so we have more time to talk through things properly. We’re still in the very early stages of thinking about a feature like this, so this is actually a really good time for us to discuss here.

A few important things to start with:

1. 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.
2. We do not have any plans for bringing a summary feature to the wikis without editor involvement. An editor moderation workflow is required under any circumstances, both for this idea, as well as any future idea around AI summarized or adapted content.
3. With all this in mind, we’ll pause the launch of the experiment so that we can focus on this discussion first and determine next steps together.

We’ve also started putting together some context around the main points brought up through the conversation so far, and will follow-up with that in separate messages so we can discuss further.

The single explosion destroyed more than 4,000 embryos and over 1,000 vials of sperm and unfertilized eggs. Dr Bahaeldeen Ghalayini, the obstetrician who established the clinic, summed up the implications of the attack in an interview with Reuters: “5,000 lives in one shell.”

The strike was an act of reprocide: the systematic targeting of a community’s reproductive health with the intention of eliminating their future. In the context of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, reprocide serves as a tactic. Indeed, genocide includes its definition, “imposing measures intended to prevent births” within a particular national, ethnic or religious group.

The bombing of the IVF clinic was one spectacular example, but as a Palestinian women’s rights activist from Gaza, I have lived and witnessed how Israel uses reprocide within a settler colonial framework that seeks not only territorial domination but demographic erasure—a process that began long before October 7, 2023.

When I was 15 years old, following the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2008–2009, Israeli soldiers began wearing and distributing t-shirts that depicted a pregnant woman in crosshairs above the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills.” I recall the fear felt by the pregnant women I knew. The t-shirts prompted people around me to recount stories of pregnant women being killed or wounded during other moments of extreme violence in Palestinian history, from the start of the Nakba in 1948 to the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. Underscoring the eliminationist nature of this violence, Israel remains among the world’s leaders in assisted reproduction technology, actively encouraging birth rates among Jewish citizens.

In an effort to trace the effects of reprocide amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war, between October 2023 and October 2024, I collected ethnographic evidence—voice notes, text messages, emails and phone calls—from those enduring or witnessing reproductive violence. Analyzing their accounts alongside official reports from Gaza reveals the many ways Israel has weaponized reproduction, some more obvious than others: from the direct assaults on reproductive health and infrastructure to the conditions it forces women and men to reproduce under to sexual violence and its role in reproductive erasure.

A man who tried to smuggle £1.2m in suitcases out of the United Kingdom to Lebanon has been jailed for 21 months, following a National Crime Agency investigation.

A study from Profound of OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity shows that while ChatGPT mostly sources its information from Wikipedia, Google AI Overviews and Perplexity mostly source their information from Reddit.

Around 10 French clients with leases on Teslas are suing the US carmaker, run by Elon Musk, because they consider the vehicles to be "extreme-right" symbols, the law firm representing them said on Wednesday.

Five years ago, on May 25, 2020, Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in the United States and set off international protests against anti-Black racism and police violence. This was supposed to be a turning point in the fight against racism. Institutional leaders across Canada pledged to address anti-Black racism. It began with statements of solidarity that morphed into task forces, initiatives and strategic plans which permeated almost every sector and level of government. The federal government has since committed $45 million to an anti-racism strategy, which promises to focus on how anti-Black racism and the unequal treatment of Black people is ingrained in our society. As well, nearly 50 universities and colleges have committed to promoting the academic flourishing of Black students, staff and faculty by signing what’s known as the Scarborough Charter. And yet, as hostility against equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) gains momentum and spreads across Canada — and as a full-blown EDI-backlash is dismantling civil rights throughout the U.S. — Black Canadian scholars are growing increasingly fearful that these minimal commitments are being abandoned. The electoral platform of the Conservative Party of Canada was rife with dog-whistle rhetoric about “ending wokeism” and even though the party ultimately did not form government, the constituency for a return to explicit and continual institutional discrimination is growing by the day. Moreover, the return of Parliament may mean a resumption of hearings in the House of Commons about the criteria for awarding federal funding for research excellence in Canada. The hearings have largely focused on claims by university faculty called as witnesses that the criteria related to research funding for social and natural sciences, humanities, engineering and health are unfair as they seek to address extensive inequities in funding competitions. Multiple witnesses, without concrete evidence, accused recent EDI initiatives meant to support women, racialized minorities and other equity-seeking groups of lowering standards of research. The hearings gave voice to easily debunked, yet often-heard rhetoric pitting diversity and research excellence against each other. These arguments suggest that an emphasis on equity “divert(s) attention” from the quality of projects or equates EDI considerations to a “religion” where being a white man is an original sin. The orientation of the new government towards economic priorities may mean that committees and hearings such as these veer even further away from equity-oriented work.

When platforms like Facebook and YouTube receive takedown notices from a reputable sender, Japan's CODA for example, the vast majority of requests are usually honored. Yet, the responses from obvious pirate sites and more legally ambiguous platforms couldn't be more varied. Some refuse to act, period. Others have compliance rates higher than Facebook, YouTube, or TikTok.