Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Wikipédia et intelligence artificielle :bâtir le savoir collaboratif de demain (ID: 23267015)/Final Report
Application type: Standard application
Part 1: Project and impact
1. Describe the implemented activities and results achieved. Additionally, share which approaches were most effective in supporting you to achieve the results. (required)
From September to October 2025, we engaged 15 educators in Benin through three main activities: (1) organizing eight training workshops on Wikipedia fundamentals and the ethical use of AI to create content, (2) creating a "AI & Wikipedia" practical guide in French with open-source technology recommendations, and (3) establishing collaborative edit-a-thons through different AI platforms (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot) that highlighted content gaps and articles produced together, with consideration of quality with each individual article.
Overall, our results surpassed expectations! We trained 15 participants who transitioned into active editors, successfully re-engaged contributors who have been inactive for years, and created 10+ articles across 6 Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews.
The most effective approaches included: providing opportunities for participants to experiment hands on with several AI tools, allowing them to determine the strengths of user-generated content (UGC) and choose the appropriate AI tool for each activity, strong emphasis on describing limitations of AI technologies and ethical guidelines throughout the workshops to showcase the possible challenge reinserting quality while developing critical thinking skills, selecting educators previously trained in other workshops instead of beginners , to allow previously trained attendees to rapidly re-engage and retain information without losing time as overall beginners, and supporting co-construction of the guide with our participants alliterated experiences and still adding a layer of relevance within our local education context.
2. Documentation of your impact. Please use space below to share links that help tell your story, impact, and evaluation. (required)
Share links to:
- Project page on Meta-Wiki or any other Wikimedia project
- Dashboards and tools that you used to track contributions
- Some photos or videos from your event. Remember to share access.
You can also share links to:
- Important social media posts
- Surveys and their results
- Infographics and sound files
- Examples of content edited on Wikimedia projects
1- We create this guide during the project as mentionned: File:Guide de contribution.pdf
3- Les events :
Additionally, share the materials and resources that you used in the implementation of your project. (required)
For example:
- Training materials and guides
- Presentations and slides
- Work processes and plans
- Any other materials your team has created or adapted and can be shared with others
1- File:Guide de contribution.pdf
2- Quelques photos:
3. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the work carried out with this Rapid Fund? You can choose “not applicable” if your work does not relate to these goals. Required. Select one option per question. (required)
| A. Bring in participants from underrepresented groups | Strongly agree |
| B. Create a more inclusive and connected culture in our community | Strongly agree |
| C. Develop content about underrepresented topics/groups | Agree |
| D. Develop content from underrepresented perspectives | Agree |
| E. Encourage the retention of editors | Strongly agree |
| F. Encourage the retention of organizers | Strongly agree |
| G. Increased participants' feelings of belonging and connection to the movement | Strongly agree |
| F. Other (optional) |
Part 2: Learning
4. In your application, you outlined some learning questions. What did you learn from these learning questions when you implemented your project? How do you hope to use this learnings in the future? You can recall these learning questions below. (required)
You can recall these learning questions below: Ce projet vise à explorer l’intégration de l’intelligence artificielle dans les pratiques contributives sur Wikipédia en garantissant qu’elle soutienne, sans remplacer, les contributeurs humains. Pour ce faire, via ce projet nous espérons apprendre à renforcer l’inclusivité des contributions, notamment dans des contextes où l’accès à l’information est limité, et d’évaluer l’impact de l’IA sur la qualité, la fiabilité et la diversité des contenus. Enfin, nous ambitionnons aussi apprendre à construire une communauté locale dynamique et engagée dans l’innovation, favorisant l’autonomie et la collaboration pour un savoir libre et accessible à tous.
Through this project, we have learned an important bunch about the intersection of AI and Wikipedia contribution practices, without losing a human-centered collaborative environment. Main Takeaways: First, while AI improves efficiency in contributions, it does not replace that human capacity for judgment. Our study participants shown that AI tools are best suited for assistance, not delegation, for research, translation and first drafts, but that human check is still necessary for credible sourcing, neutrality, and cultural relevance. Bringing together their AI-powered fastness and their critical thinking provided better outcomes than either state of being on its own - A human with no AI, or AI alone. Secondly, with inclusivity within contexts with limited information access, we found that AI tools equalized educational status. Educators who otherwise would have been intimidated by the technical aspects of wikipedia editing were relieved to have some AI-assisted writing and translation capabilities for comfort. AI lowered the barrier for educators, just enough, to structure their ideas quickly, and be in the game of contribution. Third, in regards to content quality and diversity, we discovered that AI-assisted tools improved article reliability and ethical use generated more thoroughly edited content. Further, because participants were able to quickly cross reference sources, using the AI tools helped to increase reliability, but we saw value in the second AI-generating to improve content. Yet, there is a lot of training necessary around AI limitations, to be prevent excess bias replication, or other factual errors, so as do not deter from overall quality. Future Application: We intend to scale our strategy throughout West Africa using the lessons we've learned. Our "AI & Wikipedia" guide will be the starting point for similar projects in other francophone nations. Our community of qualified educators will be expanded, and we'll encourage them to share best practices and mentor new contributors. Above all, we have developed a framework for integrating AI responsibly that places an emphasis on ethical use, human agency, and cooperative learning. Future initiatives aiming to update knowledge sharing while upholding Wikipedia's fundamental principles of verifiability, objectivity, and open cooperation can be guided by this framework.
5. Did anything unexpected or surprising happen when implementing your activities? This can include both positive and negative situations. What did you learn from those experiences? (required)
We found ourselves unexpectedly confronted with a limitation that determined many things in our process. We learned that the use of AI tools in Africa is extremely limited and mainly locates in and on ChatGPT; for instance, most of the participants had never heard of or used any other AI tools, such as Claude, Perplexity, Gemini or Copilot, even if they have different advantages for different tasks. This was both a challenge and an opportunity. At the outset, we assumed that participants would have a base level of knowledge identified from a few distinct AI platforms, and we quickly learned we would be starting over with tool literacy / discovery and comparison. Many educators had no idea that different AI tools have different strengths for translation, research, or structuring arguments. This limited exposure also uncovered a deeper digital divide, not just limited access internet, but also limited awareness of available technological tools. The fact that ChatGPT secured the monopoly means that their users miss out on other tools that meet their specific needs. It highlighted the marketing and accessibility factors that limit reach to streaming technologies for African users. On the positive side, this discovery made the training experience even more fruitful than we imagined. What was also notable was the enthusiasm participants experienced being introduced to this tool diversity. Furthermore, our comparative approach that showed when to use which tool was greatly appreciated.
6. What is your plan to share your project learnings and results with other community members? If you have already done it, describe how. (required)
At the conclusion of the project, I will share our learnings and outcomes in a number of complementary ways. I will start by writing a detailed report on Meta-Wiki that conveys not only the numbers and metrics but also our lived experience - what went well, what was more challenging, and what the participants said. It will be important to share both the high points and also when we faced challenges through the journey. I will then also publish posts social media (to Facebook and X) that reach a broader audience, especially those who do not regularly visit Meta-Wiki. If possible, I would also like to include video testimonials from participants to engage the sharing aspect and provide some authenticity. The "AI & Wikipedia" guide we write will obviously be open access and shared broadly. Since it is intentionally designed to be re-used by other communities, I will intentionally share it out with francophone Wikimedia groups throughout Africa. I will also want to share out our results at community "meet-up's", whether it be online or in-person, when my travels permit, at regional or even international Wikimedia movement events. Lastly, I will always remain available to connect directly with other organizers if they desire.
Part 3: Metrics
7. Wikimedia Metrics results. (required)
In your application, you set some Wikimedia targets in numbers (Wikimedia metrics). In this section, you will describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used.
| Target | Results | Comments and tools used | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of participants | 15 | 20 | https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Ross.Patrick/Wikip%C3%A9dia_et_intelligence_artificielle_b%C3%A2tir_le_savoir_collaboratif_de_de/students/overview |
| Number of editors | 15 | 20 | https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Ross.Patrick/Wikip%C3%A9dia_et_intelligence_artificielle_b%C3%A2tir_le_savoir_collaboratif_de_de/students/overview |
| Number of organizers | 3 | 3 |
| Wikimedia project | Target | Result - Number of created pages | Result - Number of improved pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia | 10 | 50 | 111 |
| Wikimedia Commons | 10 | 0 | |
| Wikidata | 10 | 40 | 96 |
| Wiktionary | |||
| Wikisource | 10 | 20 | 2 |
| Wikimedia Incubator | |||
| Translatewiki | |||
| MediaWiki | |||
| Wikiquote | 10 | 15 | 15 |
| Wikivoyage | 10 | 12 | 2 |
| Wikibooks | |||
| Wikiversity | |||
| Wikinews | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Wikispecies | |||
| Wikifunctions or Abstract Wikipedia |
8. Other Metrics results.
In your proposal, you could also set Other Metrics targets. Please describe the achieved results and provide links to the tools used if you set Other Metrics in your application.
| Other Metrics name | Metrics Description | Target | Result | Tools and comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
9. Did you have any difficulties collecting data to measure your results? (required)
No
9.1. Please state what difficulties you had. How do you hope to overcome these challenges in the future? Do you have any recommendations for the Foundation to support you in addressing these challenges? (required)
Part 4: Financial reporting
[edit]10. Please state the total amount spent in your local currency. (required)
1955725
11. Please state the total amount spent in US dollars. (required)
3495.6
12. Report the funds spent in the currency of your fund. (required)
Provide the link to the financial report https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Evc3sc92Gq8RaAwzpng-lBSI6pDeiaA-xndQ05UwCj8/edit?usp=sharing
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)
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)
I confirm that the funds were used in alignment with the Wikimedia Foundation mission and for charitable/nonprofit/educational purposes.