Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Web2Cit usability and maintainability enhancements (ID: 23650514)

Endorsement from Kerry Raymond (talk)

Citation is a core task in wrting for Wikipedia, so anything we can do to make it quicker and easier to create well-described citations means a better Wikipedia (happier editors, happier readers).

I have been using Web2Cit since its inception and I love it. Once you train it on how to cite a particular website, it speeds up making citations to your favourite sources and usually gives the reader a more informative citation. However, the first version has some limitations on how you can train it and it's not easy for the average contributor to "train" it (needs XML knowledge), but of course not everyone needs to train it to use it. For example, I see some common patterns emerging in my use of it and it would time-efficient to have built-in support for some of those common patterns (and would also make citation-training more accessible to the average Wikipedian).

--Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Endorsement from Ponor

How translators for web2cit are created is what I'd expect for the built-in Citoid: let our community create them and deploy in no time, instead of waiting on Zotero developers to create their translators, which then need to be imported by request on our wikis. I hope the work done here will get us close to Citoid asking web2cit to generate a reference *first*, and if that fails, asking Zotero next. On hrwiki, getting some common publications cited was so bad that we decided to enable web2cit gadget by default for all. pon_or (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Funded

Hello @Diegodlh, thank you for submitting this Rapid Fund proposal. We have completed the review of your grant request and are pleased to fund it in the amount of 7,285,600 ARS (5,000 USD). We are funding this proposal with the following feedback and questions:

Feedback:

• The data used to support that further investment in this existing tool is needed is convincing. However, the review team would like to see a bit more detail around what goals this is trying to achieve and what would happen if this grant wasn’t given.

Questions to answer:

• How will you know whether completing your task list will yield the results you’re aiming for? In other words, are you aiming for specific user metrics, such as a specific increase in adoption or contributions?
• How do you define “done”? The list of tasks is well structured with a level of effort estimate, but how will you ensure that not too many additional tasks are added?
• What would happen if these tasks were not completed? E.g. would the tool break?

DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Extension

I would like to ask if it would be possible to request for a two month extension for this project.

As I have been tracking on the task list linked to this project, the current project completion is around 50%, considering that I have completed 18 tasks overall (of 30 high priority and 5 low priority tasks committed to).

Due to personal and conflicting work reasons, so far I only managed to work 72 hours for this project, of the 175 hours originally budgeted.

These 72 hours are 33% more time than originally estimated for the 18 tasks done. Applying the same factor to the 91 hours estimated for the remaining tasks committed to, I should expect 121 hours of work pending. I am already working 16 hours per week on this project now, and I should be able to continue doing so. Therefore, the remaining hours should fit in 8 more weeks.

Would you please consider providing such an extension until July 31st? Please let me know if there is any further information I should provide.

Thank you, Diegodlh (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Diegodlh, thanks for posting your request. We approved it and extended the grant end date to July 31 with a reporting due date on August 31. Best, DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)