Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Wikidata Reference Validator:A Tool to Check and Flag Dead External Sources (ID: 23538111)/Final Report
Application type: Tech project
Parts 1-3: Project and impact
1. What was built or achieved during the project, and how did it align with your original goals, milestones and technical plan? (required)
During the grant period, I successfully built and deployed the Wikidata Reference Validator, a web-based Toolforge application designed to identify dead or unreliable external references on Wikidata items and support editors in improving reference quality.
The project aligned closely with the original goals and milestones outlined in the proposal. Core functionality for detecting dead and live references was implemented and deployed early, followed by iterative improvements based on community feedback.
Key achievements included:
- Deployment of a functional reference validation tool on Wikimedia Toolforge
- Integration planning and prototyping for Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) API to suggest archived replacements for dead links
- Creation of a dedicated Phabricator project and tasks to manage development and community collaboration
- Community testing and feedback from Wikidata and Wikimedia Deutschland contributors, which informed UI, wording, and workflow improvements
The project remained consistent with the original technical plan while evolving in response to real-world editor needs and feedback.
2. Share links that demonstrate your project's impact, usage, and technical outcomes. (required)
Required links:
- Project page on relevant Wikimedia spaces (e.g. Phabricator, Wikimedia projects, Toolforge)
- Code repository (e.g. Gerrit, GitHub or GitLab)
- Documentation or user guides
- Dashboards, metrics tools, or analytics used to track usage or contributions
Optional links you may include:
- Diff or mailing list announcements
- Community feedback
- Demos or product presentations
- Survey results or user testing feedback
- Examples of integrations or usage within Wikimedia projects
- Tool (Toolforge):[1]
- Code repository (GitLab):[2]
- Phabricator project: (Wikidata Reference Validator): [3]
- Key Phabricator task:[4]
- Community feedback pad / documentation:[5]
Optional (good to include):
- Community feedback from Lydia Pintscher, Danny Benjafield (WMDE), and Mohammed Sadat Abdulai
- Wiki Indaba Hackathon task and demo context
- Wikidata 13th Birthday “gift” listing: [6]
3. What are the key lessons you learned during this project, both technical and non-technical? (required)
Technically, I learned the importance of building tools iteratively and designing around real-world constraints such as API rate limits (e.g., Internet Archive’s Wayback API) and performance considerations when validating multiple references.
I also gained experience in structuring open-source projects for long-term collaboration, including the effective use of Phabricator for task tracking and community contributions.
Non-technically, the project reinforced the value of early community engagement. Feedback from experienced Wikidata contributors significantly improved usability, clarity, and scope. I also learned how presenting a tool clearly within the Wikimedia ecosystem increases adoption and trust.
4. How did the Wikimedia community or your target audience engage with your project during its development or release? (required)
The Wikidata and Wikimedia technical community actively engaged with the project throughout its development. Community members tested the tool, provided written feedback, and suggested feature improvements.
Feedback was received via:
- Direct testing by Wikidata contributors and Wikimedia Deutschland staff
- Community discussions on Telegram
- Written feedback collected on an Etherpad
This engagement directly influenced UI wording, feature prioritization, and the roadmap for future improvements.
5. What risks or challenges did you encounter (related to delivery, safety, or security), and how did you address them? (required)
Key challenges included handling external API rate limits (Internet Archive) and ensuring performance when validating multiple references. These were addressed through throttling, caching strategies, and careful API usage planning.
Another challenge was ensuring clarity for editors unfamiliar with reference validation workflows. This was mitigated by simplifying the interface and improving documentation based on user feedback.
No significant safety or privacy risks were encountered, as the tool processes only publicly available Wikidata content and does not collect personal data.
6. Who will maintain the project going forward, and what is your plan for long-term maintenance? (required)
I will continue as the primary maintainer of the Wikidata Reference Validator. The codebase is openly licensed and hosted on GitLab, with tasks tracked on Phabricator to support community contributions.
Long-term maintenance will include dependency updates, bug fixes, and incremental feature improvements aligned with Wikidata workflows. Community contributors will be encouraged to report issues and submit patches, ensuring sustainability beyond the grant period.
(questions 7-9 are skipped)
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]10. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency. (required)
7339850
11. Please state the total amount spent in US dollars. (required)
5000
12. Report the funds spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
Upload the financial report
12.2. If you have not already done so in your financial spending report, please provide information on changes in the budget in relation to your original proposal. (optional)
No significant deviations from the approved budget. Minor reallocations were made within approved categories to support development and community engagement.
13. Do you have any unspent funds from the Fund?
No
13.1. Please list the amount and currency you did not use and explain why.
N/A
13.2. What are you planning to do with the underspent funds?
N/A
13.3. Please provide details of hope to spend these funds.
N/A
14.1. Are you in compliance with the terms outlined in the fund agreement?
Yes
14.2. Are you in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the grant agreement?
Yes
14.3. Are you in compliance with provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and with relevant tax laws and regulations restricting the use of the Funds as outlined in the grant agreement? In summary, this is to confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the WMF mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.
Yes
15. If you have additional recommendations or reflections that don’t fit into the above sections, please write them here. (optional)
This project demonstrates how small, focused technical grants can produce high-impact tools when combined with strong community engagement. I appreciate the support and guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation and look forward to continuing to improve reference quality across Wikidata.