Structured Data Across Wikimedia/Image Suggestions/Feedback Wikipedia

This page collects the feedback from the August 2021 mass-message initiative for the image recommendation features for experienced users, which is a tool currently in development by the Structured Data Across Wikimedia team.

You can read the full summary here.

From your experience, what is the hardest part about adding images to articles?

When a picture placement ("right"("left")) on the page are in conflict with infobox creating a block of empty lines in the article is generated.Yger (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — I agree with @Yger.--Jordi (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
У меня были проблемы с шаблоном "часть изображения" ( https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Часть_изображения ), но сейчас его вообще запретили использовать. + есть проблемы с шаблоном "rotate" (см. здесь: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Обсуждение_участника:Lesless#Изображение ). Lesless (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

= I had problems with the "part of image" template ( https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Часть_изображения = Template:CSS image crop ), but now it has been banned from using it. + there are problems with the "rotate" template (please, see: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Обсуждение_участника:Lesless#Изображение ). Lesless (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local community is sometimes against the use of galleries in articles, which makes everything harder and forces us to use the often ugly, and very limited zig-zag approach.--DarwIn (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People without knowledge about copyright laws putting deletion request on every image. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Самая большая проблема - отсутствие необходимых изображений, "чистых" с точки зрения авторского права.--Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the placement of the image is often dependent on the layout of the article, and this is different according to every user's setup. So any placement will always look bad in some situations. (Side note: VE image editing lacks practical alternatives. Advanced editing of the size works with exact pixel height/width (often not-recommended) but not using "upright" tag (often recommended). Serious deficiency.)--Paracel63 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the "prettiest" tools to add images is often not easy. For example you might think "yes, I saw a page recently with a really nice gallery" but you can't remember the page. You look for the gallery codes and can't find one that matches the pages. Keeping "cheat sheet" of gallery (and other image insertion tools) for quick reference would help. Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Трудно найти нужно изображение, даже если оно есть на Викискладе: часто изображения плохо категоризованы, плохо описано содержание изображения. Обилие изображений очень плохого качества, которые вряд ли могут понадобиться в контенте, тоже сильно усложняет поиск и структурирование изображений. Томасина (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 --Rita2008 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 --Zanka (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 --Dmartyn80 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Самое трудное - это первый раз вставить и оформить изображение каким-либо особо изощрённым, редко используемым, но очень нужным в данной конкретной ситуации методом. Связано это с тем, что справка по языку викиразметки рассыпана мелкими кусочками по разным местам разных проектов. Насколько я понял, некоторые свойства и команды языка вообще не документированы. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to find and use some of the helpful tools in Wikimedia, like Croptool Forge. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
… to find adequate pictures at all --BrunoBoehmler (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to find the pictures because most of the times they don't exist or the name is wrong or is writen in a wrong way or in portuguese of brazil (there are some diferences like António vs Antônio); sometimes i can't add images because of the copyright that is diferent from country to country; it's not easy to put the image where i want in the text and sometimes it seams to appear a gap in the lines of the text when i put a image usign the visual editor and i only if it is in the right place after publishing. Girassolei
Placing them correctly, as images get a bit buggy in VisualEditor, and it is harder to predict where the image will be placed in Code Editor. --Hererightnow (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Полностью поддерживаю мысль, высказанную коллегой Томасина. Кроме того, лично для меня очень труден языковой барьер, а очень многие изображения имеют только английские название, описание и категории. В таких случаях поиск становится очень большой проблемой. --Klip game (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I usually make translations from English to Russian language. When creating a new work I choose that it's my own work, but in fact it's a derivative. It's confusing. Third option like "Derivative work" would be very helpful since it can automatically add appropriate template with link to original work. Although some mechanism for specifying translations is needed (and such an option). --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Placing images using visual edit. (They usually fail to go to the desired spot, so I must use source edit). MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finding appropriate images in Wikimedia Commons. Kuratoro (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
see comment of Paracel63. Many users don't know that the placement of the image in the article differs by viewport (especially mobile) and they're trying to do a placement or size of the image that fits their current vieweport, even by adding empty lines etc. to the article which leads to bad styling in others. -- hgzh 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images in the article could be good place and fit on the one width of window and bad on another. If you place images on any one side of the article, they look better, but could be moved down to much on wide screens. If you play with left-right placements then they look very bad on narrow screen like new vector I use. --Zanka (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, "best practices" of making galleries are constantly changed and not unified, with very ugly default gallery (too tiny images). --Zanka (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't problems with USE images in articles, but have problems with LOAD images to enwiki/ruwiki/commons, because there are many questions of licenses and so on. Most part of images creating by me (photos, schemas) was deleted by bots or administrators in short time after I load it. So now I don't load images at all. Softy (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the Big Problem is to find the right picture, the problem is visible here The placement itself is simple, if you stick to a few simple rules -- A1000 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Wikilinks with the markup on. It makes it confusing. SHB2000 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating machine-generated image suggestions into the editor workflow: concerns and potential

We have provided a few options for how we might incorporate machine-generated image suggestions into the editor workflow. What concerns do you have about these options? What excites you about these options?

General comments

the quality last I tested was too bad. I guess you need much more training data - Salgo60 (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
interesting but I miss what I do most, secure an image in WD and put in an infobox in the article showing the picture from WD.Yger (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an absolutely inappropiate intromission into the freedom of choice of editors. We don't want machine generated content, stop this project immediately, please.--Jordi (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the suggestions, since they allow us to find out new potential images for the article, but too often the image I wanted to add since the beginning is not there.--DarwIn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn man über ein Thema schreibt, sollte man selbst Bilder auswählen. Die Aufsplittung in unsinnige Kategorien erschwert die Auswahl. Sonst läuft man Gefahr immer nur dieselbe Auswahl zu verwenden. Das schadet der Vielfalt. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Мне очень не нравится идея автоматизации там, где должен работать человеческий разум.--Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a machine is suggesting the image instead of a human looking at another language edition of Wikipedia (or Commons) for images, maybe the question should be how do we make it easier to find images, not how do we make a machine suggest images. Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Я был бы рад, если бы автоматика начала предлагать для вставки в статьи изображения адекватно подходящие для их иллюстрирования. Но на данный момент у меня есть большие сомнения в том, что, как минимум на начальном этапе, автоматика будет предлагать что-то адекватно необходимое. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dieselmotorvagnar. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
iI didn't realize it existed. girassolei
Не понятно, что будет предлагать машина, если я смогу общаться с ней только на русском языке, а описание файлов не будет иметь русского варианта.--Klip game (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dieselmotorvagnar. If an article without illustrations has a Commons category link in its margin, anybody who wants to develop the article should easily find the images there, no new tools needed. Images with an appropriate matching Depicts statement should already be findable through the category. If there are images on other language versions, those should probably also be findable through the category, sometimes via a {{category see also}}. I also often do a search on Commons, with the aim of creating a new category on Commons matching the article. No need to present a single image for the editor instead of helping to create the category with all relevant images. –LPfi (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that. Please refrain from it. Never use machine-selected images, by all means! --Mautpreller (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dieselmotorvagnar and LPfi.--Historiker (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard Improvements

What concerns or excites you about improved copy, alerts and messaging in Upload Wizard to encourage more specific depict tags?

It is extremely hard for new editors to work through everything when an uploading an image. Finding suitable categories is almost impossible for new editors and they come up in red and frighten people off. As does the step of adding a "depicts" statement.. Not sure how this should be handled but it is a real barrier for older newbies when uploading. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tool suggesting depict statements in Commons has been worthless (suggesting "water", "tree" etc.) and the responsible team quite unresponsive to critic and questions (what should be added as depicts?). Until the tool is working I see little chance of it being useful in the Upload Wizard. Or is this just a text search? If depict statements are to be added, a useful search function is needed, indeed. Before we know what we want from the depict statements, adding them seems premature though. When we know what we want we need an interface and a workflow that result in good quality depicts. People experienced with categorising files on Commons should be consulted, and good measures developed for alpha tests. –LPfi (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depict statements are or can be biased and the machine does not understand political issues. Later it is hard to find and neutralize biased recommendations because the machine generated system is selfconfident and intransparent for most users. Mixing up machine intelligence with human input in this way is a powerful instrument for manipulation.--Jordi (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most easy thing i can think of is to turn the upload procedure on its head, now you have a template to fill and upload: i suggest to upload (into a tmp space) the picture and then a procedure that steps thru the template and magical fill it with some clever defaults -- A1000 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

What excites or concerns you about notifying users about potential image suggestions for an article (see image 4), with the ability to opt in or out of those notifications?

I am afraid there will be too many notifications of images that don't suit the articles in question. The ratio of good suggestions must be high enough. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most user will trust and accept these suggestions without challenging or requesting them. This leads to an unwanted uniformity of images used troughout the projects and gives those who control the notification system too much influence. Mixing up machine intelligence with human reaction in this way is a powerful instrument for manipulation.--Jordi (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing excites me. This is a harbinger of a brave new world. An image should always be selected according to human deliberation and NEVER by an algorithm. --Mautpreller (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What excites or concerns you about notifying users who have uploaded an image to Commons (see image 5) that the image(s) they've uploaded are a match to any articles on wikis in the language(s) the user speaks?

The Commons user may know nothing about the image policy on the project in question. I am also afraid that there are better images lying around (old uploads by other users or other images from the same batch); the user should also be pointed to the relevant category. Also here accuracy is needed for the experience not to be frustrating. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a user that sometimes upload files, I would like to receive notification when images are actually used in some articles (not the suggestions). As a contributor with some featured articles, I cannot imagine regular correct usage of any new image in the featured article. Usually an image is linked to specific chapter and represent specific action or view. There is no point to suggest image for article, the only valuable scenario is to suggest image for specific text in the article, but I don't think it is possible. --Zanka (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LPfi.--Historiker (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What excites or concerns you about a tool that allows users to review suggestions and add images to the articles (see image 6)? What might be missing in this tool?

The "Suggestion Reason" field is valuable. I am a bit puzzled about the tool seemingly adding the image on its own. Does the tool know where to place it? I'd also think I'd want to look at the article text to write a suitable caption. –LPfi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tool is a powerful instrument for manipulation.--Jordi (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a tool should never be used, please stop it at once. As Jordi says, it is a powerful instrument of manipulation. --Mautpreller (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Talk Pages

What excites or concerns you about placing automated messages on talk pages of articles that have a potential image suggestion?

I am concerned that this would be more useless automated spam on discussion pages. On the Swedish language Wikipedia there is a convention that discussion pages of articles are normally reserved for just discussion about the article. This is different from English language Wikipedia where there is often some banner saying that 'this subject belongs to Project Whatever and has been rated blah blah blah'. On Swedish language Wikipedia we have decided it is no longer desirable to get an automated message on the discussion page from InternetArchiveBot when it adjusts the links, because this doesn't contribute anything to the discussion about the article. Quite simply put, it is annoying to click on the discussion page expecting relevant information for editing the article and only finding a useless message that this subject belongs to a project, or there may be an image which can improve this article. Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting an image would certainly be about developing the article, but the accuracy should be high. If there already is a Commons category, I suppose there should be some special reason to suggest the image explicitly instead of relying on the category. –LPfi (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same for dewiki, using talk pages for other purposes than discussing the actual topic is handled rather strictly (only basic remarks for former RfD, Aotd and notice about existing dead links). -- hgzh 07:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like a spam. --Zanka (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1.--Jordi (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Talk Pages should only be used for human talk.--Mautpreller (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dieselmotorvagnar. Talk pages shall not contain this kind of spam and shall be reserved for discussions about the articles.--Historiker (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor

What excites or concerns you about adding suggested images to the search UI in Visual Editor (see image 9)?

...

What excites or concerns you about placing a blue dot notification by the "insert" dropdown in Visual Editor when there is an image suggestion available (see image 10)?

It shouldn't lead unexperienced users to just insert a (random/non-fitting) image because the blue dot tells them and indicates there's something missing. The decision wheter to place an image in an article should always be based on content criteria, not for silenting down the software. -- hgzh 07:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can we help users make sure they are following the conventions of your project when choosing and placing an image?

we have already problem with how to use gallery in the best way and stop people from inserting a major set of images they have taken, where only one or two should be thereYger (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply let the editors alone. They know how to look for the images they want. Do not try to gain influence by suggesting images, this is not your job. Even less when it comes to machine generated content.--Jordi (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tutorials and wizards for newbies would probably help a lot.--DarwIn (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As written at the top of this page, only provide image recommendation features for experienced users. Plumbum208 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. –LPfi (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Historiker (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Garnicht. Wikimedia soll sich da raushalten. Wenn Autoren Fehler machen, werden andere Autoren ihn darauf aufmerksam machen. WMF hat keine Befugnis, hier Konventionen festzulegen. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Никакое внешнее вмешательство здесь вообще не требуется. --Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By making sure users stick to projects where they can readily understand the conventions. If you don't know the language of the project you probably can't know the conventions. Each project has their own conventions they have developed for whatever reason (maybe it is that a photograph of a public building should lead an article about that public body, maybe it is that a photograph of a person is always preferable to a drawing, maybe it is that some photographs are unsuitable as lead images for some reason), how can a user who doesn't regularly contribute to a project be expected to know to these conventions? Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tutorials are always welcomed. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Количество изображений не должно быть избыточным. Тема изображения должна соответствовать теме статьи/раздела. Размещение изображения не должно нарушать авторские права. Каким образом автоматика будет объяснять эти правила пользователям, помогать им их не нарушить? Боюсь, что если пользователь безответственный, то он будет вставлять в статьи все подряд предлагаемые автоматикой изображения. Окончательный контроль всегда должен оставаться за человеком. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well, tutorials and face-to-face workshops based in learning while doing it; and also improve the search and cataloging of images when they are entered into the commons.girassolei
Не понятно, что будет предлагать машина, если я смогу общаться с ней только на русском языке, а описание файлов не будет иметь русского варианта.--Klip game (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's possible, communication should be done by the local communities. Maybe introduce a message next to all automated features where every community can link to their relevant convention/help pages. -- hgzh 07:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General tutorial on the images in the article already exist. It does not work as good as expected, but probably could be improved. Otherwise I agree with comments above, it depends on the people. --Zanka (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image suggestions and NPOV

Option #5 specifically notifies Commons contributors that their images might be good for an article on your Wiki. Do you see this as a violation of the neutral point of view?

Good in theory, but there have been instances where it has trigged insertions of inappropriate pictures.Yger (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it implies violation not only of NPOV, but also other content-related rules, like quality assurance. Machines are stupid and follow the judgment criteria of the owners. Editors freedom will be influenced by the views of foreigners. This is a violation of the basic principles of Wikipedia which is based on the swarm intelligence of people, not machines or software engineers who are unaware of the quality of the content they "recommend".--Jordi (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an interesting approach, but what Yger said about unwanted or wrong pictures in the articles must be taken into account.--DarwIn (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Я вижу здесь более общую и широкую тенденцию к превращению всех языковых разделов Википедии в точную копию друг друга. Это тоталитаризм, и это меня страшит. Наша сила в разнообразии.--Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea, but, as Yger and DarwIn mentioned, there needs to be a rigorous training to avoid inappropriate picture placement. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Всё равно всё будет решать человеческий фактор. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that idea will create more problems than solutions. girassolei
Если это лишь рекомендация, то проблемы с ВП:НТЗ я не вижу. Но если это будет полуавтоматическое действие в ущерб простоты другого выбора (т.е. для этого варианта достаточно 1 клика, а чтобы вставить другие варианты надо значительно потрудиться), тогда нарушение НТЗ будет.--Klip game (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a placement and there is a replacement. In case of placement I don't see any problems with correct suggestion, any replacement should be prohibited. --Zanka (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is a violation of NPOV and must not be tolerated. --Mautpreller (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to always place a suggested image as the lead image on an article?

No, specially if here already exist a leading image. For examples for communes we want it to have the building where the admins reside, and it is not OK to replace it and even if it is missing not good to insert as lead image anything else. Yger (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these suggestions are only for articles lacking illustrations. For articles already having one or several, adding one more should be done only when somebody working on the article has found the need, without automatic suggestions. –LPfi (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. The diversity of leading images used in different language Wikipedias based on different crteria of the users and/or communuties is not a bug but a feature. Don't try to standardize that, even less with machine intelligence means. It's just an abuse of your power.--Jordi (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I couldn't understand this question. Suggested by who or what? --DarwIn (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No! Your proposals come just after we have been spammed by inappropriately inserted images from the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021 campaign, see feedback on its talk page. Spamming editors have repeatedly inserted: images in the wrong article, images that are already in the article, or images with erroneous captions. Plumbum208 (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Manual curing must always be considered, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. In-your-face images can sometimes be out of place.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. See comment under How can we help users make sure they are following the conventions of your project when choosing and placing an image? Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Нет. Автор статьи всегда может выбрать другое изображение по своему вкусу. Наконец, он может найти и загрузить изображение лучшего качества, или такое изображение с момента рекомендации могло появиться на Викискладе. --Томасина (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. This does not mean that the image will be appropriate and/or useful. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Нет. Всегда - точно нет. Всегда должен решать человек. Только если изображение действительно лучше подходит, нежели имеющееся, то тогда можно и главным. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. --BrunoBoehmler (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No! only the editor(s) should do that. girassolei
Можно, но только после одобрения опытными участниками хотя бы в 3 языковых разделах.--Klip game (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely NO. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would only be appropriate if there is no image in the article (and in such a case, should only be a suggestion). MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The decision where to place an image should always be individual. -- hgzh 07:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Even images linked to wikidata frequently are not good for infobox or rejected by local communities. --Zanka (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By no means. NEVER use automatical suggestions. --Mautpreller (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I fully agree with Plumbum208 about the disater with Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021.--Historiker (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. SHB2000 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can we help users add appropriate captions?

Let the editors alone and stop this project immediately! It's an abuse of power and you are trying to hijack the Encycopedia with machine intelligence means. If you want a machine generated encyclopedia, you can build one of your own without stealing the knowledge of Wikipedia communities.--Jordi (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, tutorials and wizards would probably help a lot.--DarwIn (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Captions should only be added by editors that are familiar with the subject and language of the article. Plumbum208 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jordi said: "Let the editors alone!" This is not the job of WMF to support creating content. This is the job of the editors. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)--J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Не чешите там, где не чешется. --Dmartyn80 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tutorial and wizards could be a way forward. Definitive answers through AI could be hazardous.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions about commonly included information could help, but this would need to be project specific. Different projects include different informations. Once again it is important they understand the language otherwise they have no idea what they are actually adding. Dieselmotorvagnar (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only project specific. Different classes of article can have their own conventions. –LPfi (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Plumbum208. Sepguilherme (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Если только помогая исправить орфографические ошибки. По-другому - вряд ли. --Jim Hokins (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jim Hokins said. --BrunoBoehmler (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tutorials teachig how do add images and other stuff to an article and in commons.
Captions are article dependent. Having suggested an image, let users decide whether to use it and what the caption should be. If the user cannot create a sensible caption, perhaps he/she should not use the image. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide a message to allow the community to link to their relevant guielines. Please do not automatically suggest captions and do not take them from Commons. -- hgzh 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the tool helps in adding the image (not only linking the article), it should show the article and make browsing and reading the article easy. The tool should not suggest writing the caption before looking at the article. Of course also all information on the image should be available and presented. –LPfi (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had cases when the same image I use in more than three articles and did not repeat a caption. In my case auto-suggested caption is a bad idea. However, in general default caption might be useful for small articles with very few images. --Zanka (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Plumbum208.--Historiker (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]