“Our use of AI will allow editors to focus more on what they want to accomplish, not how to technically achieve it.”
“we cannot significantly support editors with AI for both content generation and content integrity at the same time. We made a decision to first prioritize using AI to support editors to assure content integrity.”
“generative AI in particular offers a promising solution for automated mentoring and guidance of newcomers”
“we should prioritize using AI to support knowledge integrity and increase the moderator’s capacity to maintain Wikipedia’s quality”
“the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited”
This is categorically an outright refusal to allow LLMs as a method of simply generating content. The only exceptions are for language translation (with many caveats), and for minor grammar corrections.
i.e. the shit you could do with a tool like Google Translate or Grammarly/LanguageTool/Word Spellcheck/etc, just done via a different mechanism, with anything past that being outright prohibited.
Do you even edit Wikipedia? Have you had to rewrite or remove LLM content and put warnings on people’s talk page? Have you reviewed the live changes feed to repeatedly see LLM-generated content getting removed? Or do you just want something to complain about while ignoring what actually happens on Wikipedia because you don’t seem to even have read a single meta or guidelines page on the topic?
Oh wow cool cool, but unlike you I don’t condone slop so maybe don’t die on the hill trying to defend it in my proximity it would make me feel a lot better, thanks.
And btw my link was also a direct link to Wikimedia, the nonprofit who owns Wikipedia.
Quote where I condoned slop. Oh you can’t? That’s so crazy, it’s almost as if I didn’t.
maybe don’t die on the hill trying to defend it in my proximity
Sending you links to the actual policies instead of just relying on your made up assertions of what the policies are is dying on a hill? You’re the one dying on a hill you made up lol
And btw my link was also a direct link to Wikimedia, the nonprofit who owns Wikipedia.
You linked to a blog post by Wikimedia that’s over a year old. I linked to current Wikipedia policies.
Which do you think is more reflective of the organization’s current stance:
A single blog post written by two people over a year ago
Multiple guideline and meta consensus documents cooperatively developed by hundreds of editors, and currently enacted as policy across all of Wikipedia.
(From the Meta-wiki page on the topic)
“Our use of AI will allow editors to focus more on what they want to accomplish, not how to technically achieve it.”
“we cannot significantly support editors with AI for both content generation and content integrity at the same time. We made a decision to first prioritize using AI to support editors to assure content integrity.”
“generative AI in particular offers a promising solution for automated mentoring and guidance of newcomers”
“we should prioritize using AI to support knowledge integrity and increase the moderator’s capacity to maintain Wikipedia’s quality”
(From the most current page regarding AI use policy on Wikipedia and the LLM Writing Guide)
“the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited”
This is categorically an outright refusal to allow LLMs as a method of simply generating content. The only exceptions are for language translation (with many caveats), and for minor grammar corrections.
i.e. the shit you could do with a tool like Google Translate or Grammarly/LanguageTool/Word Spellcheck/etc, just done via a different mechanism, with anything past that being outright prohibited.
Also, it is punished, via the same means any transgression on Wikipedia is. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Persistent_LLM_use and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
Do you even edit Wikipedia? Have you had to rewrite or remove LLM content and put warnings on people’s talk page? Have you reviewed the live changes feed to repeatedly see LLM-generated content getting removed? Or do you just want something to complain about while ignoring what actually happens on Wikipedia because you don’t seem to even have read a single meta or guidelines page on the topic?
Oh wow cool cool, but unlike you I don’t condone slop so maybe don’t die on the hill trying to defend it in my proximity it would make me feel a lot better, thanks.
And btw my link was also a direct link to Wikimedia, the nonprofit who owns Wikipedia.
Quote where I condoned slop. Oh you can’t? That’s so crazy, it’s almost as if I didn’t.
Sending you links to the actual policies instead of just relying on your made up assertions of what the policies are is dying on a hill? You’re the one dying on a hill you made up lol
You linked to a blog post by Wikimedia that’s over a year old. I linked to current Wikipedia policies.
Which do you think is more reflective of the organization’s current stance: