Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup

Main pageDiscussionNoticeboardGuideResourcesPoliciesResearch

Quiz to test AI-detection abilities?

Few months ago, I tried to create a page (Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI or not) in which editors can test their AI detection skills á la Tony1's copyediting exercises. At first I was copy-pasting novel examples that I generated myself, but I think compiling real-life AI-generated and human-generated articles would create a more accurate testing environment. Any help collecting examples (whether be it writing from pre-November 2022 or editors who disclosed their LLM usage) will be welcome. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Some species examples:

AI: here (easy)

AI: here (a little harder)

AI with substantial review: here (this user has disclosed their use of LLMs, including a few they apparently trained themselves, and their review process)

Non-AI: here (pre-2022) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added a pretty hilarious one into the "Hard" section of that subpage, if that helps. Altoids0 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Notifications?

Given that this wiki project is becoming a bit more like a AI noticeboard, somewhat akin to the CCI or COIN noticeboards, any thoughts about adding the standard boilerplate "notify people if you bring them up here, and try to talk through the problem with them first" notice and banner? Not a hard and fast rule, of course, and I'm sure its something experienced editors already do, but anyways. Thoughts? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As a suggestion sure, but I would disagree with indicating it's a requirement. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem with the idea, just a lot of editors brought up might no longer be around. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, if they're no longer around then they won't mind the notification! (And it's a good for CYA reasons). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

ARandomName123 and Newslinger both suggested setting up a CCI for LLM misuse which makes sense and is maybe where your suggested language could go? I don't think this project should only be a noticeboard, I'd like to see a dedicated page for that and keep this open for broader topics like research to quantify the impact of LLM use (#/% of AfC declines for AI content over time, etc.) and discussing potential policies NicheSports (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with this proposal – it would still be very helpful to be able to discuss broader topics, and they can easily get drowned in the amount of individual reports. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Chaotic Enby - any chance you can help with a short term solution? It would be good to create a "Cases" or "Investigations" tab in the project (i.e. WikiProject AI Cleanup/Cases) so we can separate cleanup cases from general discussion. Idk how hard that is but I see that you have some experience with templates so figured I'd ask :) NicheSports (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Doing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

heck yeah, thank you. Is it possible to move cases from this page (including those in the archives) to the new noticeboard? NicheSports (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy to, but I'm afraid that editors subscribed to the current threads might lose them. If that isn't the case, it's fine with me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there some way to copy them over to the board while leaving the original threads intact? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 17:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at H:TALKPERMALINK and WP:SUBSCRIBE, just moving the discussions should do the trick, I'm going to do it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

And it's done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Can we get a Noticeboard-specific archive set up? I'm cleaning up and trying to archive the posts about one-off articles/edits, because those aren't in scope there. But my one-click archiver says it is going to archive to "WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Archive 1" when I hover over the link NicheSports (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard/Archive 1, this should work now! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks. I did some cleanup of the page

• Archiving inactive sections that clearly do not meet the criteria of "repeated" LLM misuse
• Tagging + collapsing completed cleanup cases and archiving them (only one so far)
• Tagging + collapsing cases that are being significantly worked on

It's a start! NicheSports (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I picked that criterion to avoid minor issues proliferating on the noticeboard, but I'm realizing that some major issues on a single article (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#Need a second or third opinion on AI signs) absolutely did warrant a report, so I might lower the threshold. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Template

Within the past few days, a user not associated with this wikiproject (or at least not in the members list on the project's front page) created a new {{AI citations}} template to flag for possibly AI-generated citations. Significantly, they tried to make it file pages in a dated-monthly maintenance category, Category:Articles containing possible AI-generated citations from October 2025, that obviously doesn't exist — I couldn't leave a redlinked category on the pages, but I obviously wasn't going to create the category without consulting with you lot first (especially since even if it is desirable, it obviously still won't get used adequately if you guys don't even know it exists), so I had to remove the category from the template so that it currently files pages nowhere.

So do you want a template and categories like this, or is it just unnecessarily duplicating another process queue that you already have? If you want it, then somebody needs to create the categories that would go with it, and if you don't want it, then it can just be redirected or deleted as needed — but obviously, one way or the other, it requires project attention rather than just being left as a one-person creation that files articles in a maintenance queue that doesn't exist. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional context: the editor who created it appears to be using it to flag articles with utm_source=chatgpt.com type citations [1][2][3]. There exists an edit filter, 1346, which also logs the addition of those types of citations. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need this template at this time. To fifteen's point we already have Special:AbuseFilter/1346 to track that. Although I find Special:AbuseFilter/1325 more useful NicheSports (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

It's redundant but I don't really think it's bad -- the abuse filter is editor-facing, the template would be more for the benefit of readers since almost none of them are going to look at the filter or the tags. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the use of an inline template, one like {{verify source}} but tailored for LLMs, would probably be more appropriate than tagging an entire article for this specific issue, especially when considering that if there are signs of model-generated text then {{AI-generated}} is more appropriate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the approach I would prefer. If they're only flagging sources with chatgpt.com in the URL, then the individual source is what needs to be verified. And these sources aren't necessarily problematic because a lot of people use LLMs in place of search engines and just lazily copy-paste the URLs after visiting the sites. That much less concerning than using an LLM to actually write article content. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this, although ChatGPT also adds UTM parameters when generating content itself. Maybe a template looking like could work?

We already have {{AI-generated source}}, but it applies to sources that themselves contain AI-generated content, rather than sources that were linked by an AI model. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

^{[AI-retrieved source]} is probably the best way to phrase it. and it should link to something explaining what the tag is indicating. I suppose after a tagged ref would be reviewed the utm_source should be removed, or the template should have a checked=date parameter that will hide it from view to prevent retagging. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I already made it so the hover text displays more information, but if you have an advice page in mind, that would be great! I can throw something together quickly based on {{verify source}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Done with {{AI-retrieved source}}! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good!

I don't think linking a full advice page is necessary, just a small section to explain what "AI-retrieved" means should be adequate. To that end I've made this edit to TM:AI-retrieved source/doc to try to make it a suitable landing page for such a link. Further improvements are welcome, and if it's not an improvement a revert is welcome also. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If the template is kept, probably easiest to have it file in Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts from October 2025 for now and then split it if it actually sees use. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've modified the template to file articles in that category, although as of now it doesn't appear to actually be in use on any pages at all anymore. Beyond that, I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether to use it or get rid of it. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

More AI signs

Whatever the recent chatGPT (copilot?) update was, it has hilariously started adding maintenance banners to generated text occasionally - see User:SGIDavid/sandbox for a current example. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Google Gemini now correctly identifies certain situations, like {{Single source}}, inserts a hatnote and suggests to add more sources. Викидим (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

MfD: Wikipedia:Case against LLM-generated articles

There is a Miscellany for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Case against LLM-generated articles that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.—Alalch E. 10:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just talk

I just read an article that posed the question Also: If Wikipedia is “generally not considered a reliable source itself because it is a tertiary source that synthesizes information from other places,” then what does that make a chatbot? I thought it was a good question, so I asked Googles AI: [4]. I thought it was a pretty good answer, but I'm not sure other people will see what I see, maybe it changes per location etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

courtesy ping to @Gråbergs Gråa Sång as I moved this here. WP:AINB is for reporting potential LLM misuse - it was created yesterday, so you are actually the first person to post anything there! WT:AIC is the place for general LLM-related discussion NicheSports (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it does indeed fit better at a Wikiproject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Google's AI model isn't available in my location, but I'll add that Wikipedia not being a reliable source is not due to it being a tertiary source. While there isn't much of a need to cite tertiary sources in general (as they don't add any new information compared to the secondary sources they synthesize), the reasons why Wikipedia isn't considered reliable go beyond that, and are because it is user-generated content and especially because of the risk of circular sourcing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Analyzing AI word/phrase frequency

Posted about this on the signs of AI writing page, but people here might be interested as well: I decided to loosely replicate one of the studies analyzing the frequency of certain words in AI versus human-generated research abstracts, except with (probably) AI versus (almost definitely) human-written articles.

Here are some preliminary results. It's a work in progress, not perfect by any means and there are flukes, but the data probably won't surprise anyone here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, pretty great start! I wonder if it could be possible to run them through a tokenizer? Right now, species, is treated as a different word from species and appears to be overrepresented in the AI dataset, likely by a statistical fluke. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Possibly! I'm hesitant to do too much cleaning of the text because I feel like it's likely that AI might have punctuation or capitalization or syntax quirks.

For instance Additionally, with the comma and capitalization, is pretty high up, while Additionally and additionally (comma or no) aren't even on the list. I don't know whether that's because those words just aren't in any of the human articles -- the original study has a min-occurrences-per-million-words comparison to deal with this scenario, but I don't have a million words in either data set yet -- or because of the anecdotal thing where AI really likes to start sentences/paragraphs with "Additionally, blah blah blah...."

The species thing seems to be a fluke but a dataset rather than punctuation fluke, since both those two words as well as species. are all more common in the AI text. (I would guess it's probably due to how many of our old species articles are stubs from a database.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Concerning the additionally thing, it's possible that the latter is true. I read in a preprint that LLMs seem to not just have catchphrases but also slightly disfavor certain grammatical words, like "is" and "are". It's likely that lowercase "additionally" is another example! Assuming your current dataset is representative, anyhoo.

Awesome work by the way Gnoming! I am delighted to put this page in my bookmarks Altoids0 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the new preprint! Just skimming: anecdotally speaking, I don't feel like I see "delve" in newer articles as much. delves is the only form that shows up in any of these word/phrase lists using these thresholds, and it doesn't place high on any of them. delve and delving are both gone.

My datasets are probably godawful -- I tried to think of as many problems they might have as I could, the problem of course is what to do about it besides tracking down more articles to feed it and hoping it all averages out. I could just generate articles with ChatGPT or whatever myself, but I don't use it and don't intend to start, and I don't know what prompts people are using. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gnomingstuff! I conducted an interview with Businessweek today about WikiProject AI Cleanup, and briefly mentioned this preliminary result – is that okay with you? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh... I'm not sure that is a good idea per WP:BEANS. I'm already suspicious LLM designers are using the project (and things like the EF 1325 criteria) to train "better" models - ones with less puffery but just as much reference hallucination. If I'm wrong, seems better to not publicize what we're doing here? NicheSports (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No objections on my end.

Not that concerned about WP:BEANS -- this is something researchers have published a ton of data on already. The thing is basically just me dumping Wikipedia text into a dumbed-down version of the Juzek/Ward study and going "fuck it, we're doing four words," doubt that's anything LLM designers haven't thought of already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Template

@Chaotic Enby: do you think something like User:EF5/AINB-notice would be beneficial? ^EF⁵ 17:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That could work great! Helpful for editors who might want to defend themselves from accusations, clarify the specifics of how they used AI, or just help clean up/double-check their own edits. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Athanelar and @NicheSports from the noticeboard discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The notice looks fine to me so long as its use isn't required. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: maybe there could be a notice like at WP:ANI that says "it is recommended, but not required, that you inform involved editors of a discussion", or something else of the like. ^EF⁵ 17:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Something like: The {{AINB-notice}} template can be used to inform an editor of a discussion involving them, would be my suggestion. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, just having it as an optional tool is enough – having it be recommended can easily shift into a de facto requirement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I've WP:BOLDly moved my userspace draft to a template; no harm in having it. What to do with the notice can continue to be discussed. ^EF⁵ 18:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I added documentation on the template parameters to Template:AINB-notice/doc. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

As there didn't appear to be any opposition, I've added the template to the page instructions for the noticeboard in this edit: The {{AINB-notice}} template can be used to inform an editor of a discussion involving them, but this is not a requirement. Anyone who disagrees with this phrasing, feel free to revert and we can continue discussing here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Book citation verification strategies

Hi @NicheSports! Responding to your recent comment at ANI re edits to Social conservatism in the United States, but my reply is not really on topic there, so I figured I'd pop in here. For most of the suspected-LLM-generated book citations I've run into, I've been able to look up the book in Google Books and view the cited page. I just sometimes have to be a little crafty to stay within the number of pages that Google Books allocates for previews, such as opening the link in an incognito window and/or adjusting the Google Books URL to get to the cited page number. (There are useful template URLs at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Linking to Google Books pages.) My backup method is to check whether there's a scan of the book at the Internet Archive, in case the cited page is within the preview allocation there.

Checking book citations is not a new topic, but it's much more important now that it's so easy for even well-intentioned editors to add realistic but fake citations. The section at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Citations is helpful, but specific validation approaches seem out of scope there. The linked page at Wikipedia:Fictitious references would benefit from a thorough update for the era of LLM-generated sources, including more details about checking book sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Another trick for finagling text out of Google Books' paywall is to search for any phrases that are cut off at the end/beginning of the preview, and/or your guess at them. So if the preview cuts off at "The film won the Academy" you can try searching "the Academy Award," sometimes that'll give you the next page, sometimes not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Can't we have a bot that verifies existence of ISBNs? Bogazicili (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of made up ISBNs will throw checksum errors, like ISBN 978-456454-554-3 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We can expect a link to google books and try the strategy below, "Category:Hidden categories, such as unchecked sources with no links"? Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation. I was wary about trying to verify article content cited to books because I recently made a mistake while doing so. But I will try again with this approach NicheSports (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Fake citations with fake links

Fake links seem to go to 404s, can't we have a bot that checks if recently added sources with links resolve to valid webpages? 404's can then be marked or something. Bogazicili (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I think there may be technical limitations in having a bot testing tons of urls across many articles. But may be easier to create a bot that users can run on a single article or diff, for example to test for G15 criteria. Pinging @Sohom - are either of the above possible? NicheSports (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

How about just the recently added ones? Something daily?

Single article would work too.

The bot could combine multiple things. For example

• 404s
• No match for ISBN if it's a book source
• Recently added source with no links or ISBNs. To identify the source in this hoax article for example: Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Amberlihisar#References. I mean they should be tagged somehow. Bogazicili (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There's link-dispenser which you can use on a single article. It helps sieve down a lot of URLs to some potentially dodgy ones. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Would be great if this could run on a diff as well NicheSports (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@SunloungerFrog: what about a tool that combines multiple things mentioned above?

It can also check sources without links and add a Category:Hidden categories, such as unchecked sources with no links. We may need a new reference variable for genuine sources with no links such as |no-link-check Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

So the tool is written by @Sohom Datta not me; they will better know the art of the possible in terms of additional features. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, we should have something like "AI generated source check" or more broadly "source existence verification" similar to "Fix dead links" or "Copyvio Detector" when you click page history Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models § RfC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models § RfC, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Format for the noticeboard

Could we create a template for a collapsible table similar to Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four's comment here so people can keep track of work done and work still to do (by we I mean someone else that knows how). On the user side it could look something like {{AIC table|collapsed=yes|user=Steven|article1=Fishcakes|clean=y|g15=n|article2=History of Fishcakes|clean=n|g15=y}}. Most efficient, if possible, would probably be to have the default being no for "clean" and "g15" parameters, and it only needing a yes in one of those per article entry where the other parameter/box gets greyed-out. Would people find that useful? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Many cases require cleanup across hundreds of articles and I don't think this is viable at that scale. I also have some feedback on the columns in this table. I often don't tag articles associated with an AINB case and just fix them instead. I have cleaned hundreds of articles and I don't think I have ever G15'd an article associated with an open case at AINB - other editors not associated with the project typically get to those first (often via AfC or NPP). When I G15 its normally by finding stuff via the edit filter logs. My actions while cleaning are typically: revert, stubify, rewrite, tag and leave, or (rarely) AfD. NicheSports (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

That said I would love a way to both clerk and track our cases better. I have been meaning to look at CCI to see how they do it there NicheSports (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think a table is a reasonable way to track cleanup progress. Small cleanup efforts could use a table in situ, larger efforts could be hosted on a subpage with a hatnote added to the top of the report linking to the subpage and indicating if cleanup has been completed or not. An example LLMN discussion might look like:

Mass LLM misuse by User:Example

Ongoing cleanup efforts are being tracked at subpage, 50 pages need review.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no...

The CCI process looks too formal for the way reports here and at LLMN have worked, ideally tracking efforts should be low-friction and kept tightly coupled to the original reports. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been tagging stuff if it isn't something I can revert without splash damage -- I assume a lot of those articles have been quietly untagged but I haven't been keeping track because there is so, so much and I just don't have the patience to argue over them all. Open to a more formalized tracking system though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Icon/topicon/logo

I don't want to unarchive the discussion but did you ever reach consensus? It doesn't seem like you did and I want the topicon I make to use the right one. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Archive 3 § New logo?

Consensus was formed to not use the proposed new logo, with six editors opposing (myself included) and two supporting changing to it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this little guy it is then: Cute, I like it. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Wikiproject_AI_Cleanup_topicon, now I won't have to hunt for the project page. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No, seriously, what do you have to do to get people to believe you?

The discussion was archived but I wasn't done, nor did I get an answer to my question, which is: How do you get people to believe you?

NOTE: This is not a discussion about policy. Please do not derail it into a discussion of whether AI use should be allowed or disallowed. This is about how to get people to see what you are seeing, to trust that it is possible for people to identify AI-generated text with over 90% accuracy if you know what you're looking for, that there is actual research about what to look for, that the signs of AI-generated writing exist as an aggregate pattern over millions of words in thousands of articles, that I have both read said thousands of articles and analyzed the text patterns in them alongside many other people who have done the same, and that whatever article I am tagging falls dead-center within that pattern (because when they don't, I don't tag them). This question would be the same regardless of whether AI is allowed or not.

But it seems like all I ever get is people telling you to shut up, essentially: shooting the messenger by complaining that there is now a template on "their" article, asking you to somehow track down a blocked editor from 2023/2024 to swear they used AI on oath, or the latest charming example: maybe i'll make this a Simple English wiki article. (I guess their calling me stupid is OK since didn't say the dreaded unspeakable F-word?)

What is the sequence of words that will get people to actually listen to you. I would love to know. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

And yes, I am incredibly frustrated because it seems like you can't win. If you tag articles, people complain that you're not pointing out the exact issues (when, for the millionth time, you don't know the exact issues without thorough review; you also don't know what an unsourced statement should be sourced to or whether it's wrong without researching and yet no one complains about pointing out unsourced text). If you point out the issues, people ignore you no matter how clear-cut the evidence provided is. If you fix the issues, people complain that you've destroyed their work. It feels like the only acceptable action to people is to shut up. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The answer is the same as it was last time: Don't. Ignore the fact that it is or isn't generated by AI and instead focus on why the words on the page would be problematic if they weren't written by AI. For example if there are verification problems, then the problem is not that it was written by AI the problem is that it fails WP:V so explain why it fails verification (and if necessary why failing verification is a problem). If the problem is that the text is waffly and rambly, then the problem is with the writing style so explain that the problem is that the text is waffly and rambly, why this is a problem and rewrite 1-2 sentences yourself to show the difference. And above all, even if you are correct 90% of the time that it was written by AI, just remember that every 10th person you accuse of using AI is telling the truth when they say they didn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you get people to believe you?

I want to know if it is even possible at all. I'm starting to think it isn't. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 15:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You and I have different approaches. I primarily track the 1325 and 1346 edit filters and have a high threshold for tagging, typically only when I can document multiple content verification failures on the article talk page. I don't think you should change your threshold though - you have a high accuracy rate and are basically single-handedly identifying the magnitude of the problem for the community. My suggestion would be if you run into one of the situations to just ping someone from AIC to come do a deeper analysis of the article for WP:V failures. I'm happy to do that for you. NicheSports (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

there is now a template on "their" article is probably the sum of it unfortunately. I was complaining over coffee and I'm not sure there's a quick solution. If people are getting WP:OWNERSHIPPY over an article, and someone drive-by tags something they missed, they might get defensive. If they can't even see the problem themselves then is it a surprise they revert the tag? Frustrating as all hell, but not surprising. I'd just re-revert with a standard edit summary featuring links to here, the LLM essay, stuff like that. No judgement, just a nice neutral "not all problems are immediately visible, please leave the tag unless/until you've done a thorough review". Until we have an actual AI/LLM/GPT policy they're not actually doing anything technically wrong by removing the tag.

BTW Thryduulf, straight question, do you think it's acceptable to use GPTs to write Wikipedia articles? Please don't waffle over definitions for official policy, I'm not asking your official admin position here, I'm curious what you think as an editor, and just as a person. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The reason for this answer is because it is completely and utterly irrelevant how people write Wikipedia articles. If the content they submit meets our copyright, quality and notability standards (WP:V and similar are included under quality here) we should accept it regardless of whether and/or how LLMs or any other technology was used. If the content they submit doesn't meet the copyright and/or notability requirements then we don't want it regardless of any other factors. If they content they submit meets the copyright and notability standards but not the quality standards then it should be cleaned up (if reasonably practical) or deleted (if cleaning up is not reasonably practical). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that acceptance of AI as a tool for writing is inescapable, whether we like it or not. However, unlike the other tools that made writing possible for people who would have had hard time writing otherwise (text editor, spell checker), generative AI is just too fast for humans to check its output. IMHO, part of Wikipedia success is based on a fact that in the past curtailing unacceptable activity here was (marginally) easier than actually engaging in this activity, so a game of whack-a-mole was fun. Generative AI puts us squarely against a machine - a game humans lose - so what we need to think of is either:

1. limiting the rate of incoming text to the level we, human editors, can handle, or
2. engaging AI in checking (think of filters on steroids).

I think of an RfC proposal in the context of #1. When thought of as such, alternatives to the outright LLM ban are obvious: just like WP:VPN, institute a special flag that allows some editors to use an LLM, a privilege that shall be hard to earn and easy to lose. Викидим (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how viable this is as a solution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DarklitShadow/AI_detection DarklitShadow (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As a human reviewer that kind of vagueness is a good tell, but I suspect building an automated system that can identify "vagueness" is a challenge similar in scope to the building of the LLMs themselves. -- LWG ^talk 21:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, that strikes me as far more buggy and wishy-washy than simply looking for keywords or stylistic tells. And far harder to justify to someone you've just tagged with the LLM template.

I agree that "vagueness" (or I would prefer the term "overgeneralization") is probably the most specific and constant feature of LLM writing, but also one of the hardest to prove and to quantify. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Publifye

Please see the previous thread. "Publifye" publishes AI-generated books with little to no human review. As this is not always apparent, users mistakenly cite these books as reliable sources. My suggestion in the previous thread was to create an edit filter, but nothing happened. I'd like to workshop some ideas about how we can mitigate this and similar issues going forward. I think there should be an edit filter that warns editors when they add an AI-generated citation (contains for example "Publifye" or one of its authors is "AI"), and tags these edits. A mention at WP:RSML, Wikipedia:Large_language_models#Sources_with_LLM-generated_text, and/or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Types about this would also be great, something along the lines of "Some publishers are known to publish AI-generated books with little to no human review. As these are products of machine learning, they are not reliable." Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)