GSoC has always had projects targeting third parties in the past, i don't see any issue with that as long as they are reasonable projects.
If anything, i think the third party gsoc projects have a generally better track record than the Wikimedia ones. -- Bawolff On Tuesday, 3 February 2026, Sohom Datta via Wikitech-l < [email protected]> wrote: > I genuinely hope there has been some misunderstanding here. While I'm all > for "let's use AI consciously and not put AI on Wikipedia," I do not see > how using it in a third-party instance that is likely never going to be > deployed on any Wikimedia project is relevant to the WMF especially in the > context of Google Summer of Code, where the funding for the project is not > even coming from the WMF to start with. > > Even putting aside the AI issue, I'm also personally not currently a very > big fan of how this year's event is playing out. The docs were unclear, > and the "we need microtasks before submission" requirement was not clearly > communicated. More importantly, the previous year's events had been "chill" > in that there was never a competition/selection process to get projects in > time, and whenever we fell short of the requirements as mentors, we were > given gentle nudges to fix them, not entirely removed from the program. > > Regards, > Sohom Datta > --- > Open-source contributor @Wikimedia > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 7:31 PM Pine W via Wikitech-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Speaking in general (emphasis: I have not done a deep dive into the >> information presented in this specific scenario), I'm not a fan of >> requirements being sprung onto folks (this would include being sprung onto >> WMF staff) who have designed a project according to specifications that >> they thought they understood, and then after time has been spent to design >> a project according to the known specifications, the goalposts are moved, >> an undocumented expectation is cited as a reason for rejecting a proposal, >> or a new requirement is implemented, especially if the people planning the >> project are not given a window of opportunity to align with the revised >> goalposts or the new understanding of requirements. In general, I believe >> that surprises during review processes should be minimized, especially >> after an opportunity for revisions has closed. And I would hope that, if >> such surprises happen, there will be deep dives into the review procedures >> to understand what happened and why. >> >> Thanks, >> Pine🌲 >> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM Yaron Koren via Wikitech-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I've been mentoring Google Summer of Code projects for the Wikimedia >>> Foundation for over 15 years now, and in all that time, I don't recall a >>> technically viable project suggestion being rejected by the WMF. This year, >>> six were. [1] Three were rejected for technical reasons (a few hours past >>> the deadline, no microtasks yet) - which seems harsh, but those are the >>> rules now, I suppose. That still leaves the following three rejected >>> projects: >>> >>> - Agentic editing capability for Wanda [2] >>> - Improve Commons Android app using privacy-friendly edge AI [3] >>> - Querying of structured data for Wanda extension [4] >>> >>> Wanda is a MediaWiki extension that provides an AI chatbot, so all of >>> these are AI-related. I'm involved with the first and third one; the third >>> one was a last-minute substitute after the first one was rejected - we >>> thought that perhaps the issue with the first one was that it >>> related specifically to AI *editing*, so we switched to just AI querying >>> instead. To no avail, though. >>> >>> (And yes, the third one was ostensibly rejected not because it was AI >>> but because I was a listed mentor for two different projects - but I >>> offered to replace myself with someone else, both before [5] and after the >>> rejection, and got no response, so I'm guessing that was not the real >>> reason.) >>> >>> The Wikimedia Foundation is free to set any rules it wants about which >>> projects to accept and reject. However, if the rule is now that no AI-based >>> project will be accepted, I think that should be stated publicly, to avoid >>> wasting potential mentors' time. And it should be clarified whether this >>> policy applies just to the Google Summer of Code, or also to other >>> mentorship programs, or even other things like development grants. >>> >>> [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/8423/query/all/ >>> [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414281 >>> [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414881 >>> [4] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T415465 >>> [5] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T414617#11523658 >>> >>> -Yaron >>> >>> -- >>> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l. >>> lists.wikimedia.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l. >> lists.wikimedia.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
