90
Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text, with two exceptions (www.howtogeek.com)
submitted 2 months ago by corbin@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] infeeeee@lemmy.zip 48 points 2 months ago

Saved you a click:

After much debate, the new policy is in effect: Wikipedia authors are not allowed to use LLMs for generating or rewriting article content. There are two primary exceptions, though.

First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy. In other words, it’s being treated like any other grammar checker or writing assistance tool. The policy says, “ LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited.”

The second exemption for LLMs is with translation assistance. Editors can use AI tools for the first pass at translating text, but they still need to be fluent enough in both languages to catch errors. As with regular writing refinements, anyone using LLMs also has to check that incorrect information hasn’t been injected.

[-] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago

AIbros: we're creating God!!!

AI users: it can do translation & reformating pretty well but you got to check it's not chatting shit

[-] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 20 points 2 months ago

The takeaway from all LLM-based AI is the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway. All output needs to be verified before being used or relied upon.

The "AI" is just streamlining the process to save time.

Relying on it otherwise is stupid and just proves instantly that you are incompetent.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 3 points 2 months ago

the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway

I'm gonna say that's ideal but not quite necessary. What's needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It's an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don't necessarily need to be filmmakers, or the P=NP question in computer science.

[-] Pyro@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago

But if the output has issues, what're you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI's mistakes yourself.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 5 points 2 months ago

At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you're completely right. I'm honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

[-] Redjard@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.

You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I can't draw, but I could probably photoshop out some minor issues in an AI-generated image.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

I don't think AI users would say it does reformatting either (if they're honest): If you tell a chatbot to reformat text without changing it, it will change the text, because it does not understand the concept of not changing text. It should only take one time for someone to get burned for them to learn that lesson.

[-] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 2 points 2 months ago

Fucking hate those anti human filth pushing slop into everything. I want to take one apart with power tools.

[-] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 0 points 2 months ago

Damn that movie was funny. I need to rewatch it.

[-] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

It holds up better than any movie from the late 90s that I can think of.

[-] MissesAutumnRains@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago

Seems pretty reasonable to use it as a grammar checker. As long as it's not changing content, just form or readability, that seems like a pretty decent use for it, at least with a purely educational resource like Wikipedia.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

To save you another few clicks: this is the discussion (RfC) that implemented the changes, and the policy is linked at the top.

[-] ji59@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 2 months ago

So, it should be used reasonably, as it should have always been.

[-] daychilde@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Liar. I already read the article before opening the comments. YOU SAVED ME NOTHING.

;-)

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Seems like there should be a third exception. For those occasions where the article is about LLM generated text. They should be able to quote it when it's appropriate for an article.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 3 points 2 months ago

That is a reasonable exception to no-AI policies in research papers and newspaper articles, but not for Wikipedia. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia has a strict "no original research" policy. Using AI to provide examples of AI output would be original research, and should not be done.

Quoting AI output shared in primary and secondary sources should be allowed for that reason, though.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

An extremely measured and level-headed response. Kudos to Wikipedia for maintaining high standards.

[-] kazerniel@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

It has to be said, they originally changed their stance due to the considerable editor pushback when they tried to introduce LLM summaries on the top of articles. So kudos to the editor community's resistance! ✊

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Good point. The real strength of Wikipedia truly lies in the editors .

[-] Mwa@thelemmy.club 7 points 2 months ago

W Wikipedia,would be better to remove the exceptions but its fine tbh.

[-] SunlessGameStudios@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I know at least one writing major who won an award from his volunteer work at Wikipedia. He did it as a hobby. They don't really need AI, they need people like him.

[-] antonim@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How do you win an award from editing Wikipedia?

[-] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

But how do they know it is ai written?

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Banned the people who openly admit it, anyway.

[-] SuperPengato@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 2 months ago

Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text,

Smiling Gus

... with two exceptions

Glaring Gus

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I hoped the exceptions would be like "Quoted example text of LLM output, when it's clearly labeled and styled separately from the article text."

[-] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

That exception probably would be twisted into permission to add an “AI summary” section to each article.

[-] webp@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago

Why do they need AI at all? Wikipedia had existed long before it and was doing fine.

[-] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago

You could make that argument about any tool Wikipedia editors use. Why should they need spellcheck? They were typing words just fine before.

...except it just makes it easier to spot errors or get little suggestions on how you could reword something, and thus makes the whole process a little smoother.

It's not strictly necessary, but this could definitely be helpful to people for translation and proofreading. Doesn't have to be something people are wholly reliant on to still be beneficial to their ability to edit Wikipedia.

[-] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

Why should we use (insert tool) when we did just fine before?

Because when used correctly it can be great for helping you be more productive, and find errors/make improvements. The two exceptions are for grammar which AI does a surprisingly good job with. Would you have gotten mad if they used Grammarly >5 years ago? Having it rewrite an entire article is gonna be a bad idea, but asking it to rephrase a sentence, or check your phrasing for potential issues is a much safer thing. Not everyone who speaks Spanish uses it the same way. Some words are innocuous in some regions, but offensive in others.

[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago

Why fire, berries fine

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] webp@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

Call me mad, call me crazy. AI shouldn't be altering databases of knowledge, especially when it is so inconsistent. If there is a question on whether certain words are appropriate why can't you ask another human being, they have forums for a reason, or someone else comes along and fixes it. Or look at a dictionary. The amount of energy spent for dubious information, holy. It's not like there is a shortage of human beings on earth.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
90 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

85169 readers
921 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws