First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy.
translation assistance
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
545 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
82989 readers
3429 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There should be only one exception: In case someone needs an example of an AI-generated text.
Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text,
... with two exceptions
But how do they know it is ai written?
I was about to link to that, and specifically the stuff that now seems to have been moved to Signs of AI writing.
I thought that was a very interesting read, because it's so much better than the usual AI ragebait that led to people getting pilloried over the fact that they actually know how to use em dashes. You can't detect LLM use just by the fact that someone uses em dashes. It's a complicated stylistic issue that usually boils down to "well, you know what ChatGPT output looks like when you see it".
Ok but surely there must be an automated way. You can't throw manpower at this because they will loose
There are no reliable automated LLM output detectors. Anyone who says otherwise is either trying to sell you snake oil (or is unwittingly helping someone to sell snake oil to someone else, I guess).
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.
To save you another few clicks: this is the discussion (RfC) that implemented the changes, and the policy is linked at the top.
AIbros: we're creating God!!!
AI users: it can do translation & reformating pretty well but you got to check it's not chatting shit
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.
This is absolutely the case, and honestly, at least for now how it needs to be across the board.
Noone should be using AI to do things you're incapable of doing (or undoing).
Relying on it otherwise is stupid and just proves instantly that you are incompetent.
Relying on it in any circumstances (though medical stuff is understandable if you're simply too poor or don't have access) while it is exhausting water supplies and polluting the planet is stupid and instantly proves that you are stupid and inconsiderate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can't draw, but I could probably photoshop out some minor issues in an AI-generated image.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
So, it should be used reasonably, as it should have always been.
load more comments
(10 replies)
An extremely measured and level-headed response. Kudos to Wikipedia for maintaining high standards.
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! ✊
Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.
It's not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it's not the "rebellion" people want to make it out to be.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries
It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it's supposed to go. It's not resistance, it's all of them being on the same team and talking.
Thanks for the reframe! From what I've seen in Village Pump comments at the time, editors (including me) were upset bc putting LLMs into Wikipedia articles seems like an idea so obviously clashing with Wikipedia's values and strengths, that it was a shock to see it taken as far as it got before the wider backlash. (Also put into wider context, the whole world seemed to be jumping onto the LLM bandwagon at the time, so it was dismaying to see Wikipedia do the same.)
Does anyone like LLM summaries in pages? This seems like a better fit for a browser extension to generate a summary on demand instead of wasting resources generating it for everyone. Google's documentation is absolutely littered with the mess.
Good point. The real strength of Wikipedia truly lies in the editors .
W Wikipedia,would be better to remove the exceptions but its fine tbh.
Banned the people who openly admit it, anyway.
there are ai detectors, although Im not sure about accuracy of those
very bad
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›