Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Spadeprince (talk | contribs) |
→Maiden and Married Names: It would appear that this is the edit that was wanted to be undone -- will notify user |
||
Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Short description|Page for discussing policies and guidelines}}{{Redirect|WP:VPP|proposals|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}{{village pump page header|Policy|alpha=yes|The '''policy''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is intended for discussions about already-proposed [[WP:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]], as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.
*If you wish to propose something ''new'' that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|Village pump (proposals)]]. Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
* For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]].
* If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]] or the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]].
* This is '''not the place to resolve disputes''' regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]].
* For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]].
Please see '''[[WP:Perennial proposals|this FAQ page]]''' for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|r=y}} of inactivity.<!--
-->|WP:VPP|WP:VPPOL}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}
__TOC__<div id="below_toc"></div>
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 204
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
{{clear}}
==RfC: Party affiliation in BLP infoboxes==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1757991669}}
{{Rfc|policy|rfcid=E526D0C}}
I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, [[Adriana Kugler]]'s infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, [[Todd Blanche]] does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{T|Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.
The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes|the RfC over the religion parameter]]. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
===Survey (party affiliation in BLP infoboxes) ===
Question presented: Should the party parameter in infoboxes be deprecated for non-political BLPs?
* '''Support''' — As nominator. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', and I note that both of the examples given in the original RFC question are "political" BLPs (both of them were [[Political appointments in the United States|political appointees]] in a system that expects appointees to come from the president's own political party) – people who very much are "directly associated with politics". Whether an inline citation is needed directly in the infobox depends on the usual [[Wikipedia:When to cite]] rules, namely whether the information is also present and cited elsewhere in the article. While political party affiliation ''can be'' "nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial", it is usually not, especially for people, such as political appointees, for whom this is actually relevant. "If relevant" appears in the documentation for {{tl|infobox person}} more than a dozen times. If you can figure out whether to add <code>|employer=</code> or <code>|height=</code> or amateur radio <code>|callsign=</code> "if relevant", then you can probably figure out whether to add <code>|party=</code> "if relevant", too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Whether the use of the field meets [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] varies by article. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 04:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - per {{u|Graham11}} — [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - per above. >^[[User:CreativeLibrary460|<span style="background-color:#ADD8E6; color:navy">'''CreativeLibrary460'''</span>]] /[[User talk:CreativeLibrary460|<sup>access the library</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/CreativeLibrary460|<sup>revision</sup>]]\ 08:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per WAID. "Non-policitcal" requires exactly as much nuance as "if relevant" and so doesn't actually bring any benefits. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion (party affiliation in BLP infoboxes)===
:I would say that unless they are running/elected in a position that requires a political affiliation to be made as part of the election process so that we have a clear basis to document it, this should be left out of the infobox and explained in the prose. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think that if they are ''explicitly'' running as a candidate for/in affiliation with a given party, and this is cited in the pose, then it should be in the infobox. Otherwise it should not be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Agree. {{slink|Talk:Sydney_Sweeney#RfC:_Sydney_Sweeney's_political_party_affiliation}} was recently [[WP:SNOW]] closed with consensus against inclusion, for instance, and editors should not have to waste time dealing with similar disputes on other BLPs whose subjects are not directly associated with politics. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree too. Too often I see a supposed party affiliation being added to judge infoboxes (Scalia, for example), based not on party registration or self-declaration but by some third party claiming it, and that opinion being claimed as a RS. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am thinking of many local elections that are intended as non-partisan positions, though candidates often assert their position in their campaign materials, in comparison to partisan offices that usually require party primaries to be elected to. In the latter case, the political affiliation is part of the election process and can't be disputed (making it fair to include the infobox). [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::If someone is explicitly running on a partisan position then that position should be in the infobox. Even if the position is intended to be non-partisan if someone is running on a partisan platform then it is de facto partisan. The job of Wikipedia is to represent what the reality is, not what it is/was intended to be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would be more clear in this comment and state that the infobox should be following what sources say. [[Brad Schimel]] was nonpartisan in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this year, but he was described as a Republican across various outlets. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 18:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's exactly a situation that I would *not* include the political affiliation in the infobox, because that's not a requirement for running in that election. In prose, absolutely. Its the same reason we restrict calling out religion in the infobox for only those people who's careers are specifically tied to the church/equivalent body of their religion, though we are free to include any stated religious beliefs in the prose of the article. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Schimel is in an interesting position because he ran as a Republican in the Wisconsin attorney general elections he was involved in. Most of the cases where a politician running for a non-partisan office is clearly affiliated with a party involve prior elections. I was reading a local news report from Wisconsin that made it clear that Schimel was ''de jure'' non-partisan. In cases where a candidate explicitly says they are of a certain party but they are running for office in a non-partisan role and they have not run in any other elections where they would be a candidate for that party, then that should not be in the infobox. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 19:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:For a given individual, in some cases it's clear that they're "directly associated with politics," in some cases it's clear they aren't, but there are some people/positions where it's unclear. Todd Blanche is someone I'd put in the third group. He is a political appointee in an ostensibly non-political position, but in this administration, it seems that the position is political as well. I don't think political party is a "nuanced, complex" issue. I also don't think people should be adding this info without an RS. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::I would argue that Blanche should not have "Republican" in his infobox. He is not a politician nor a political advisor. The argument that the "position is political" is a reach from what is being suggested here. Wikipedia shouldn't make its own conclusions. In reliable sources, Blanche might be described as a Trump loyalist, but not a Republican, a rather vague term that doesn't encompass Blanche's fealty to the president. The prose can handle describing Blanche properly. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 04:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think we should limit listings of party affiliation to people who ran for office as a candidate for the party or people who served as officials of the party. I have seen party affiliation listed for people who served in political office in a position that was elected on a non-partisan basis, I do not think that is justified. There are of course people who have had multiple party affiliations. If they served in office for multiple parties that can be listed. One thing to keep in mind is on occasion a member of one party has appointed people from a different party to their cabinet, so even cabinet members we cannot assume they share the party of the president. This is even more clear in cases or any sub-cabinet position, for judges many times so. The same probably applies even more so to people who serve on the cabinet of governors. Many mayors and other local officials in the US are elected on a non-partisan basis.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution. There are the obvious cases, candidate runs as a partisan in a partisan election. And on the other side, there are non-partisans who run in non-partisan elections. But, there are many people who may be known (either in independent sources or verifiable non-independent sources) as a partisan. And, there are individuals who run as a partisan in a partisan election who change parties or disaffiliate at some point after that election. And, for many subjects, there are BLP considerations to account for. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Political party is a voluntary act, not something that can be otherwise discerned, even by RSs. Unless there is evidence of voluntary affiliation, through registration to vote or entering a party primary that requires party membership, or being a party official of some kind, I would exclude. RSs without evidence of this are just partisan name callers. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:If this is an RfC then it needs to be formatted and advertised as such. If it's just a discussion, perhaps in advance of a potential RfC, it needs to be relabeled. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I have done that now. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You still haven't formatted it so it will be advertised as an RfC at [[WP:RFC/A]]. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*The two examples provided are political BLPs and the infobox used is {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}, not the generic {{tl|Infobox person}}. Party affiliation is a basic and often uncontroversial piece of information for office holders. I appreciate that there may be more complexity with non-partisan state and local races and political appointees whose personal party affiliation may differ from that of the leader or body who appointed them. I agree with the comments above that someone like Sydney Sweeney should not have their party affiliation listed; if relevant and appropriate per [[WP:DUE]] and other applicable standards it can be discussed in the article body. If this is meant to be an [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] discussion, which would be helpful, it should be clarified that this does not apply to {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}. I'm not yet convinced party affiliation should be completely deprecated from {{tl|Infobox person}} but I may get there. It is inappropriate for most public figures who are not/have not been office holders who are not primarily known for political, partisan work. For folks known primarily for and associated with politics but who are not office holders, like commentators and strategists, it may be case-by-case. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It really seems like this is a field that belongs in office holder infoboxes or modules with a start/end, and not for a generic person. I'm really struggling to think of situations where party seems appropriate for a person. Even for non-office holders who are clearly very partisan, it seems like the better way to do it would be to have it in the occupation or known for fields. Something like "occupation: <party> strategist", or "known for: <party> political writings" or similar. That strikes me as more neutral and verifiable for a potentially nuanced fact like affiliation. [[User:Driftingdrifting|Driftingdrifting]] ([[User talk:Driftingdrifting|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think for info boxes we should only ever list party affiliation for people who held public or political office, and not list it for people whose primary office was a non-partisan elected office.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 13:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*If we did want to partisan affiliation to a non-political person's infobox, we'd have to weed through what to make of people who are registered with one political party, but have given significant donations to candidates of a different party; or who are registered as (say) a Democrat but who ran for political office on the Green Party ticket 15 years ago; and other combinations like that. I think it gets complicated quickly and it would be better to avoid it altogether. Just askin' for trouble. [[User:Novellasyes|Novellasyes]] ([[User talk:Novellasyes|talk]]) 18:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
== LLM/AI generated proposals? ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1758301267}}
{{RFC|policy|prop|rfcid=D90E1F5}}
We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in [[WP:HATGPT]] after further discussion at [[WT:TPG]]. Recently, an editor [[Special:Diff/1304748131|started a requested move using LLM generated content]]. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.
Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?
I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing [[WP:PAG]] that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think this is a good idea. Editors shouldn't be required to waste their time whenever somebody posts LLM slop. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:I’m hesitant still with suggesting the use of gptzero except as additional evidence alongside with conclusive proof. But otherwise I’m always of opinion that most use of LLM in discussion is a bad faith usage of editor time. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:As I say every time things like this come up, the focus is completely wrong. We really should not care whether it is or isn't AI-generated, that's just wasting everybody's time trying to determine something that is irrelevant. If the proposal is understandable, relevant to the page it's on, isn't just rehashing something that's already been discussed to death (even if you disagree with it) then whether it was written by a human or machine couldn't be less relevant: deal with it as a good-faith contribution unless you have evidence it is not (use of an LLM is ''not'' evidence of good faith or of bad faith, it's completely independent of faith). If it is in bad faith, not understandable, trolling, rehashing a settled discussion, etc. then close it to avoid wasting time - this applies regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or human-generated. One of the many advantages of this approach is that it doesn't require any changes to policies or guidelines, because that's how Wikipedia has worked for many years. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::Fair points. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::"Fair" points perhaps, but not ''good'' points. Real editors who could be doing real things to benefit the project should not have to spend their time parsing machine-generate bloat in the hope that it will turn out to be the one-in-fifty case that isn't anywhere from fatuous vacuity to bullshit hallucination. The OP's linked example is an unfortunately poor exemplar of the problem, but anyone who's been active in project space over recent months has seen examples of text which makes you angry that someone expected you to waste your time reading it. You know how you can tell a tsunami is coming because the ocean suddenly recedes, leaving asphyxiating fish flopping on the sand? That's the stage we're at right now. We should respond to AI-generated text the way we'd respond to text in Klingon: tell the author to come back when they can write in English. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::EEng's statement above matches my own sentiment exactly, and I '''support''' the expansion of HATGPT to cover LLM-generated proposals. Comments in a discussion shouldn't be generated and neither should requests for discussion. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::And take a look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles] ANI discussion for a truly epic example of how one AI-drunk incompetent can waste hours of the time of a dozen competent editors. `[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::"AI-drunk" reminds me of drunk driving. Cars a powerful and dangerous tool. We have licenses to operate, competence restrictions (age, eyesight), training courses, rules of the road, consequences for violations, etc.. the alternative is ban cars entirely because horses, public transport and walking work fine. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 04:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Except we don't have licenses, competence restrictions, training courses, rules of the road, consequences for violations, etc. for AI. All we have is doofuses careening left and right, knocking down pedestrians, tearing up the pavement, frightening the horses, jamming the roadways with their vehicles actually headed nowhere, and poisoning the air with noxious fumes. So yeah, until those issues can be addressed AI should be banned, and walking, cycling, horses, and public transit -- which have served WP very well to date -- will have to continue serve until AI gets to the point that it can magically transform those lacking competence in English, and/or an understanding of what an encyclopedia is, into useful contributors. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. LLMs are getting better, and we will very soon be unable to spot their output.[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/how-to-spot-an-ai-video-lol-you-can-t/ar-AA1KaA7C] We need to deal with problem posts and edits the way we always have. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 01:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Some guy at some company says his people have trouble recognizing fake videos with their naked eyes. So what? You want to throw in the towel right now based on that? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Eh, I think the [[GPT-5]] fiasco points to LLMs reaching a plateau in terms of "quality". I'm not worried. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]])</span> 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::To some extent I agree, but just because LLMs aren't improving fast doesn't mean they aren't improving at all. Especially the biggest and most obviously identifiable tells remaining are likely to be improved on, even if the strategy of just making bigger and more powerful models no longer leads to large increases in performance. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::If it makes you feel better, pretend we're enforcing our existing policy on meatpuppetry to remove text written by some<s>body</s>thing other than the user account editing it onto the page. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I used to think that that agnosticism about the source of commentary is correct but I have changed my mind. The choice is not between using an imperfect heuristic like "is this LLM-generated" and sedulously evaluating the content of discussions. As others have pointed out, editor time is a limited and precious resource. Since LLMs make it easy for editors who would not have otherwise been able to do so to add superficially plausible content to a discussion, we can expect that volume of content to increase, without a corresponding increase in time to evaluate it. That means our standards for discussion are going to shift in the direction of being more BITEy and intolerant of imperfect contributions ''regardless of whether we adopt any rule regarding LLMs''. If LLMs really do improve to the point of undetectability, as Donald Albury suggests, then we're probably going to be driven into a different set of heuristics with hard and stringently enforced limits on [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and so on. But for now, LLMs do seem to have a distinct "register", even if it's hard to prove with certainty, and I think it might be more fair to go after that while we can. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 03:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] As I say every time you make comments like this, I disagree. The source matters and LLM use ''is'' evidence of bad faith, because it shows the editor doesn't care, doesn't respect the community's time, and is happy to outsource their brain to a machine. We should have a heavy bias towards proposals created by thinking, breathing humans, not something someone lazily asked a bot to slap together. The former has value, even if the proposal is dumb; the latter is slop and without any worth. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Tpq|LLM use ''is'' evidence of bad faith, because it shows the editor doesn't care, doesn't respect the community's time, and is happy to outsource their brain to a machine.}} I couldn't disagree with your rabid assertion (note it's not even an assumption) of bad faith more strongly. LLM use is not evidence of faith, good, bad or otherwise. What matters is the faith of the user, and that is not demonstrated by their using an LLM because some users of LLMs do so in good faith (for example those completely unaware of the attitude of ''some'' editors here towards it) while others do it in bad faith. ''Please'' stop assuming that everyone who has a different opinion of LLMs than you is inherently out to destroy Wikipedia - they are not. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You're calling my assertions {{tq|rabid}} now? That's a new low. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you don't want to be accused of making rabid assertions, don't make them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Good grief.
::::::By the way, I don't assume {{tq|that everyone who has a different opinion of LLMs than you is inherently out to destroy Wikipedia}}. I assume that (1) article contributions based on AI are bad for the encyclopedia, even if the intent is good, and (2) talk page contributions based on AI are evidence of bad faith, (3) that AI is a bad thing. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Now for some facts:
:::::::#''Some'', but not all, article contributions based on AI are bad for the encyclopaedia. Good contributions based on AI are indistinguishable from good contributions that have been nowhere near an LLM.
:::::::#''Some'', but not all, talk page contributions based on AI are left in bad faith. Use of AI alone is not evidence of good or bad faith.
:::::::#Not all AI is LLMs. Not all AI, and not all LLM, is bad (or good) - it is vastly more nuanced than that.
:::::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::In effect, the AI/LLMs-on-Wikipedia debate is divided between those like you who want to assess the ''content'' of the contribution, regardless of its origin, and those like me who think it's just simpler to ban LLMs because they're a net negative and more trouble than they're worth. The upside of your approach is that it's less likely to chase away potentially positive contributors; the downside is that it means a lot of cleanup work and AI slop to manage. The upside of my approach is that it's clean, simple, and effective; the downside is that it is best suited for cynical, paranoid people like myself. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 15:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::In general I agree with your last comment, but I have a few quibbles:
:::::::::*{{tpq|it means a lot of cleanup work and AI slop to manage}} is incorrect. Slop will continue to be posted whether LLMs are banned or not for multiple reasons - not all slop is LLM slop, we have absolutely no way of determining whether something is or is not LLM-generated before it is submitted, and bans don't stop people doing the thing that is banned (either in good faith because they don't know it's banned, or in bad faith because they do it anyway). Fortunately we already have all the tools we need to manage this as best we already can: slop can be closed/hatted/reverted (as appropriate to the situation) regardless of whether it is LLM-slop or human-slop, disruptive non-slop can be closed/hatted/reverted (diito) regardless of whether it is LLM-disruption or human-disruption. So in summary neither approach changes the amount of cleanup work required.
:::::::::*Your list of downsides to your approach neglects to include the significant harm to the project from driving away good-faith editors and the amount of needless disruption caused by arguments over whether something is or is not LLM-generated.
:::::::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|divided}}{{pb}}Well... going by the outcomes of the last half dozen LLM P&G RfCs, I'd say this division is like an 80/20 split in favor of "ban all LLM slop", and closer to 90/10 if the opposition is at Thryduuulf's level... <br>Anyway, it's not like copy-pasting LLM output in conversations or as scholarship is considered "okay" in the wider world, in which case we could AGF a bit more for newbies who don't realize it's not acceptable here. So frankly I have no qualms about biting an editor who needs an unfiltered LLM to communicate as they are either too lazy/incompetent to be a productive editor or they belong in a different language edition. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with this. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 19:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not okay with endorsing the biting of ''any'' editor, for ''any'' reason, let alone enshrining a requirement to do so in policy. Such is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's basic philosophy and I'm horrified that people are seriously considering it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The UPEs must love you... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#c-Tryptofish-20250816221400-Tryptofish-20250813230800 Tryptofish's comment here] on the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you see LLMs and generative AI as a valid tool that can be misused; I, and many others, I think, see it as a tool that is fundamentally not appropriate for editing an encyclopedia. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 16:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{Tpq|I think you see LLMs and generative AI as a valid tool that can be misused...}} yes and no. The current generation of LLMs are unsuitable for making edits to the text of articles without full human review (AI-generated images are not really relevant to this particular discussion and are best treated separately anyway); whether LLM+human review is more or less "efficient" than a fully-human edit is a matter of personal opinion that is likely to be impacted by the nature of the specific edit. In most, but importantly not all, cases unreviewed LLM-based contributions to talk pages are not a net benefit. However this misses the fundamental reasons I disagree with you, which is that you see any use of LLMs as automatically meaning that the person using the LLM is contributing here in bad faith whereas I see evidence of people using LLMs here in both good and bad faith. Specifically there are many people who make LLM-based comments with a sincere desire to improve the encyclopaedia without knowing that there are many editors here whose views regarding AI are so blinkered that they cannot or will not consider that someone can do such a thing.
::::::::::::My response to Tryptofish's comments are similar: we do not BITE those who are incompetent or NOTHERE because we give them a chance to demonstrate that they can contribute constructively before blocking them, and when we do block them we do so on the basis that they either cannot or will not do so. That is fundamentally different to someone who currently is not contributing in a manner we approve of but who may (or may not) be capable and willing to when they learn what that means - if it turns out that they cannot or will not ''then'' it is appropriate to deal with them in the same manner we treat those who are incompetent or NOTHERE but who do not use LLMs. Simply using an LLM is not evidence, on its own, of bad faith, incompetence or of not being here to improve the encyclopaedia.
::::::::::::UPE is also similar in this regard - while there are unarguably many undisclosed paid editors who are here in bad faith there are also such editors who are here in good faith but simply do not know our rules and do comply when they learn that they need to (and how to do that). There are additionally an unknowable number of undisclosed paid editors who exclusively make good quality contributions to unquestionably notable topics such that nobody even suspects they are paid editors and they never learn they should disclose. So again, simply being an undisclosed paid editor is not evidence, on it's own, that one is here in good or bad faith.
::::::::::::Separate from the issue of faith is that, as multiple other people have also pointed out, is that contributions that are actually bad, whether LLM-generated or not, can already be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines so there is simply no need for a policy/guideline specific to LLMs. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is not a question of whether an LLM comment is necessarily bad and therefore should be removed. The point being made is that nearly all LLM comments are disruptive because of their length and thrown-at-the-wall details (and the fact that they are rarely helpful). Replying to such comments would require significant effort. Further, there is a good chance that replies will be ignored by the editor concerned. Debating LLMs would lead to their normalization which could easily overwhelm talk pages and noticeboards. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Comments that ''are'' disruptive can already be hatted/removed regardless of why they are disruptive and regardless of whether they are LLM-generated or not. Comments that are LLM-generated but not disruptive (which you acknowledge exist) should not be removed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{tq|Comments that are LLM-generated but not disruptive (which you acknowledge exist) should not be removed.}} I disagree. I think it is not too much to ask to communicate with actual human beings. Talking with an actual user as opposed to through the screen of an LLM makes communication a lot easier. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 14:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then you are in luck, an actual person will be the one that posted the content and the one you are talking with. LLMs do not post on their own, they all require human thought and input. Thats how they work. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 14:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::That’s not entirely accurate. While it’s true that an LLM doesn’t autonomously log in and hit “submit,” it’s misleading to suggest that posts generated by an LLM are purely human in origin. In practice, many edits and comments across platforms are authored almost entirely by machine output, with minimal or even no meaningful human oversight. The “input” may just be a short prompt, but the bulk of the content—including the structure, wording, and even factual framing—comes from the model.
:::::::::::::::::Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text. Saying “an actual person posted it” ignores that the human role might be closer to pressing a button than actually creating the content. That distinction matters if we care about originality, accountability, and reliability of information. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::And if we know that they did not check what they are submitting you would be correct. But we cannot know that. Its just assuming bad faith at that point. So we go off the assumption that when someone hits submit they checked what they are posting. There is no other option. So yeah, I am going to ignore the distinction because it has no value and does not matter. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::That’s not entirely accurate. It’s misleading to suggest that posts generated by an LLM are human in origin simply because a human hit the submit button. In practice, many edits and comments across platforms are authored almost entirely by machine output, with minimal or even no meaningful human oversight. The “input” may just be a short prompt, but the bulk of the content—including the structure, wording, and even factual framing—comes from the model.
:::::::::::::::::::Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text. Saying “an actual person posted it” ignores that the human role might be closer to pressing a button than actually creating the content. That distinction matters if we care about originality, accountability, and reliability of information. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{tpq|Equating that to “human thought” risks blurring the distinction between genuine human authorship and machine-assisted or machine-generated text.}} firstly there is a strong community consensus that machine-assisted and machine-generated text are not the same. There is a strong community consensus that the former is not inherently problematic, and a lesser consensus that only ''unreviewed'' LLM-generated text is.
::::::::::::::::::Regardless, there is no benefit to making any of these distinctions because if the text is disruptive it can already be removed regardless of which of the three types it is. Nobody has given any justification for removing text (of any origin) that is not disruptive. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::LLM-generated content, and even comments with a significant LLM assist, are disruptive because they are not written by a real human being. Is it too much to ask to communicate with people as opposed to having users export their minds to an AI? Is that really so radical? I simply cannot understand your perspective on LLMs. How is using an LLM to communicate ever appropriate? [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 18:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] I agree with you that there is a distinction between machine-assisted and machine-generated text, and that the former is not inherently disruptive. I also agree with the strong community consensus (against which you appear to be one of the few dissenting voices) that ''unreviewed'' LLM-generated text is inherently disruptive and is unacceptable on this wiki (though I share your concerns about feasibility and enforcement of some of the countermeasures that have been proposed).
:::::::::::::::::::I think where we differ is in our view of text that falls between the extremes. I think your insistence on ignoring source and judging text entirely on content disregards the fact that a large part of the meaning of any text is its surrounding context. The same text can be disruptive if it comes from one source in one context while being fine from a different source in a different context. One of the most essential pieces of context in any communicative act is ''who is the speaker''. We already have firm rules here that it is totally unacceptable for editors to outsource their writing to a hired human, so I see no reason why we should tolerate outsourcing to a [[Software as a service|SaaS]] that does the same work. Likewise, we consider that any editor who copy/pastes content from an external website has an obligation to disclose where they copy/pasted the content from and their rationale in doing so, and I see no reason why we should tolerate undisclosed copy/pasting from an external website that dynamically generates the content on demand. I recognize that there's fuzzy space in the middle and I recognize that we should be cautious when making new rules, but I think your treatment of the issue is incomplete. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with Thrydulf. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Another consideration is copyright. If an editor posts an article that they did not write, that would seem to violate the existing copyright rules of Wikipedia. I was going to dig into the legal side of it, but got stuck on the answer that Google's AI came up with: "Copyright protection requires human authorship; works generated solely by AI are not copyrightable, but works that are assisted by AI can be if a human exercises sufficient creative control over the final output." I though this was actually a good starting point for policy, that is, the concept of "sufficient creative control". [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Wikipedia's legal policies don't require that every edit be copyrightable. It's okay to post public ___domain and non-copyrightable edits.
:::::What we need is to not violate copyrights. If there is no copyright to be violated (something that can be difficult to determine), then there's no violation of our legal policies. However, we could always complain about [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]] (a non-copyright problem of claiming that you wrote something when you didn't). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' (kind of): I support the idea in theory. But the linked move request would have been [[WP:SNOW]] closed as oppose anyway. What happens if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC that people support (which will likely happen)? Or if someone posts a LLM-generated RfC on a perpetual source of drama, and people respond to it before the LLM use is noticed (which will also, maybe even more likely, happen)? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:Current practice for discuassions that don't need closing seems to be someone asks if llm was used, and then either it is rather unbelievably denied, or there is some pivot to "you should focus on the argument rather than the method" which I'm pretty sure llms must be offering as a reply given how consistent it is. After that the discussion tails off. For those that do need closing and would otherwise linger wasting everyone's time, I would agree with the proposal that the guidelines should allow someone to quick close them, while not making it mandatory. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::Broad '''support''' as a guideline, given this has moved towards bolded !votes below. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:If LLMs are to be allowed to generate such requests then simply ask an LLM to generate a reply based on your position, make sure to ask it to give detailed explanations now all the points it raises. If it's the case then maybe someone could create a script to autogenerate comments, or even the whole discussion. Editors shouldn't be expected to put more effort into replies than the original poster put into theirs. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::I admire your good sense to troll back basically. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If generating the original comment using an LLM isn't trolling then neither is the reply. If the reply would be trolling then the original comment should be hatted. If people think that editors should be allowed to use LLMs, then streamlining the process so everyone can use them is surely desirable. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:I would tend to support this, although with two caveats. Firstly, that AI detection software, while useful, isn't perfectly accurate and shouldn't be exclusively relied on for that purpose. And, secondly, that proposals getting reasonable support shouldn't be closed just because the original proposal was AI-generated, while those with no support can be immediately closed based on that.{{pb}}The main issue for me (and the reason why I believe this is not comparable to existing human-written discussions) is that it is trivially easy to generate long proposals with AI, and that it comparatively takes a much larger amount of volunteer time to analyze (and usually dismiss) these proposals. This imbalance is simply not fair to our volunteers, and having to repeatedly deal with AI-generated proposals will just slow down community discussions and divert precious resources from more well-thought proposals. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - To address the concerns about good proposals written with AI being closed, if it's so obvious a good idea, it would certainly be proposed quickly anyway. I don't think the benefit of a theoretical wonderful AI-written proposal that wouldn't be suggested anyway is worth the massive downside of giving any kind of additional foothold to LLMs. LLMs are an existential threat to Wikipedia as a useful project, and I see it as our mission to stop it wherever it is possible to do so.{{pb
}}[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 17:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support speedy-closes of formal discussions created primarily/entirely by chatbot''' - It's [[Brandolini's law|highly unlikely]] the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming [[WP:CIR|they're able]]) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|huffing nutmeg]]. Even the most perfunctory human-written discussion is better than a long AI-written post simply because the human is far better at source critique and rebutting opposing arguments. As Enby says above, I wouldn't support speedy-closing any discussion which has already attracted some amount of commentary before its provenance was discovered. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|It's highly unlikely the people using the chatbots are willing (assuming they're able) to make coherent arguments based on policy and a reading of the available sources, but if they are there's no reason to bring in a fallible script that's huffing nutmeg.}}{{snd}}Yes, this is another excellent point. I believe our attitude should be that use of AI to generate either article text, or discussion text, is ipso facto proof of incompetence as an editor -- because no competent person would think that AI-generated text is a useful contribution -- and should result in an immediate indef. I am not kidding about this. Shoot to kill. (Unblock only after a clear statement that they now understand the issue, but a second offense should be another indef, with a minimum 12 months before unblock may be re-requested).{{pb}}As for the [[wikt:bleeding heart]]s who worry about people who would not be able to contribute without relying on AI to write for them: well, if you can't write it yourself, neither can you review what AI wrote for you, so I'm afraid we can't use you on the project. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm frankly astounded and appalled by this attitude. Whatever happened to [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:BITE]] and the other half dozen or so things you've tossed by the wayside in your haste to hate? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Questioning someone's competence is not questioning their good faith, but stupid sincerity is not enough. And I do not apologize for BITE-ing a robot, even if it speaks through a ventriloquist's dummy in human form. To paraphrase someone that I'm not likely to quote ever again: {{tq|Extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice. Moderation in tracking down and stamping out AI-generated crap posted by [[script kiddie]]s is no virtue.}} [https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/].{{pb}}If we don't take dramatic action immediately, our cherished Neutral Point of View will soon give way to the Neural Point of View. (You can use that quip free of charge.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::P.S. I dare anyone to take a gander at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles] ANI discussion and not be angry at the time wasted by competent editors who are forced to wade through the AI slop being posted -- and defended! -- by this one incompetent. And I have no problem calling him incompetent, since he obviously lacks common sense. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Dare accepted. I'm more angry at the people who are choosing to insult editors on a project page while yapping about how we "must take dramatic action immediately," instead of [[:Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts from August 2025|taking dramatic action immediately]]. Be the change you wish to see in the world. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 04:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Boy, [[Special:Diff/1299531392|you're not kidding]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Yeah, I don't people realize how bad the problem has ''already gotten''. A lot of the AI slop has gone undetected despite being blatant; you can't really say anyone's being "forced to wade through the AI slop" considering how few people are actually wading through it. I haven't even really done much to ''fix'' it myself -- my main skill is tracking down and identifying problems, and I'm OK with that. (Maybe I should have been an auditor.)
*::::::But the AI cleanup backlog jumped from ~100 AI articles to ~400 in a couple of days, not due to a sudden influx of slop, but because I singlehandedly found 300 instances of slop that was already there. This isn't me being self-aggrandizing, just stating the facts. I didn't use any special tools besides a few simple targeted regexes -- I typed phrases [[Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing|we already know about]] into the Wikipedia search box and investigated the obvious cases. Anyone else could have done the same thing anytime in the past 2 years, rather than insulting people who often really do genuinely think they are helping the encyclopedia, sometimes because they've been encouraged to do so through edit-a-thons, Wiki Ed courses, or [https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/ the Wikimedia Foundation itself.] Their edit summaries often mention "improving the encyclopedia," "rewriting for a neutral tone," etc.
*::::::(Also, for what it's worth: [[WP:CHATGPT]] is ''not actually policy'', although arguably it should be. [[WP:CIVIL]] is.) [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I've literally been tracking down hundreds of AI-generated articles for the past several days. Please don't tell me what I do and don't worry about. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::If you're addressing me: I didn't tell you or anyone else what they worry about. I addressed any editors who happen to harbor a particular worry which I specified, and discussed that worry. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::{{+1}} to everything EEng has said. AI contributions have no value, and I'm tired of people tip-toeing politely around AI slop and pretending it's something other than a steaming garbage heap. Quite frankly it smells of appeasement. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 13:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Except we're not {{tpq|tip-toeing politely around AI slop}} we're pointing out that AI slop can be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines because ''all'' slop can be dealt with under existing policies and guidelines regardless of whether it is human slop or AI slop. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Irrelevant''' - given that the actual proposal at an RM is simply “[[current title]] —> [[proposed title]]”, I don’t think it matters if someone uses an LLM to generate it. Similarly, an RFC question/proposal is supposed to be brief and neutral (example: “'''Should the article say ABC instead of XYZ?'''”) and, again, I don’t think it matters how that basic question is generated (In fact, I would love to train LLMs so they generate RFC questions this way).{{pb
}}What I think is actually being objected to is using an LLM to generate the proposer’s ''opening statement'' (explaining ''why'' they think the move should take place, or ''why'' ABC should be replaced with XYZ) … but ''that'' is commentary on the proposal, not the proposal itself… and commentary is already covered by HATGPT. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:That is correct, and it's because the opening statement is ''essentially the proposer's argument for why XYZ should happen''. It isn't something an LLM actually has the capacity to summarise or explain in most cases, especially if offline sources are being used for the argument (as LLMs generally cannot access those); using one for the purpose basically forces the proposer to waste time clarifying whatever the LLM said than actually defending their proposal, and that's ''outright ignoring'' the LLM's [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|divinorum addiction]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 21:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*::But HATGPT ''already'' says we should discount comments generated by LLMs. So what is the point of this proposal? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Proposed decision#Editor time is our most valuable resource|To prevent people from wasting time clarifying or arguing over whatever the LLM said instead of defending their position.]] —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 00:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::But HATGPT ''already'' covers this. We can discount comments generated by an LLM… It doesn’t matter whether that comment is the initial comment (by the proposer) or a subsequent comment (by an editor responding to the proposal). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::But, if someone opens a proposal and their original comment gets collapsed, should other volunteers have to spend their time opposing the proposal? That's the question this new policy tries to answer – they shouldn't. From what I understand, HATGPT would leave the proposal open (and taking volunteer time from more relevant proposals), just without the opening comment. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]: That's the wrong question. At present, without any change to any guideline or policy, editors already do not have to spend their time opposing any struck/collapsed proposal, even if a human had written it. We already ''can'' speedily close; a guideline saying "you can" when a policy already suggests "you should" (that policy being [[WP:NOTBURO]]) would be a bad guideline. If there is no driving rationale for a change from the status quo in the discussion, and everyone is supporting the status quo—and there is therefore no controversy—the formal process is a waste. Editors can keep talking about how they all agree that something is okay "in their spare time", not using resources of venues such as AfD, RM, etc.: The scaffolding of "7+ days' listed specifically-formatted discussion that must be closed" is not needed. Such processes are closed with a speedy endorsement of the status quo (such as [[Wikipedia:Speedy keep]]—an existing guideline about this). NOTBURO says: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedure". So, yes, some constraints of "rules and procedure" may help consensus-formation develop more harmoniously ''because'' there is disagreement (which may be accompanied by a little bit of tension and a human tendency to stonewall or overstep, especially when advanced tools with limited access are involved) ... but if there is no disagreement, why ''any'' rules, and why ''any'' procedure? The driving rationale for a change can evaporate in any discussion, turning a (seemingly or truly) controversial issue into a non-controversial one, and this can happen in a variety of ways. One such way is withdrawal/reversal of a !vote. Another is the nomination/comment being struck: ban/ARBECR violation, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, trolling, ''and AI content''—already in [[WP:AITALK]]. So the only change might be: Should AI use be ''exempt'' from this general logic, and should editors ''become'' obligated to treat struck AI content as nominations/comments that are not struck. So this is fundamentally a relitigation of AITALK: If they are struck, but editors must begin to behave as if they were not, the striking of AI comments becomes striking in name only (just a visual change, no functional difference) and AITALK is effectively abrogated. So the proposal in this discussion is to overturn AITALK with the detail of leaving functionally meaningless striking-in-name-only in place. {{u|Blueboar}} is entirely correct. This discussion is badly framed and its no consensus outcome could improperly undermine AITALK.{{pb}}... and the oppose !votes reflect this, as they intuitively understand the stakes. So, for example, below, opponents say: {{tqq|Unless a detection method is found that is consistently accurate I don't really trust others vibes to remove users votes in something}}, {{tqq|I think any procedure such as hatting suspected LLM-produced material has the potential of encouraging the biting of newcomers}}, and similar. So, comments should not be struck/collapsed ("removed"). That is just a !vote to abrogate AITALK, indistinguishable from a comment opposing adoption of AITALK in a discussion on ''whether to adopt'' AITALK ... but AITALK has already been adopted. Now, editors are building consensus for AITALK again, trying to persuade opponents of AITALK that it should be understood to mean what it already means. As these opponents oppose AITALK to begin with (because of a total skepsis toward the possibility of doing something about the AI problem / deeply-held view that it is not a problem), they will of course never be persuaded about some particularity regarding the application of this thing that should not be a thing and will embrace the premise that the thing is toothless and that a consensus is needed to give it teeth. At the same time, supporters of AITALK will not !vote in favor of AITALK-as-AITALK (aware or unaware of its practical implications) believing that their support is not needed because it has already been adopted. Therefore, this time, acceptance of AITALK will fail. The starter of this discussion wanted to make AITALK "stronger", but instead caused it to be undone. This is why RfC questions need to be neutral and need to contain a proposal to change the status quo without misrepresenting the status quo. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::This also gives AI comments extra priority and durability over human comments: While a human comment being struck could cause a discussion to be closed, an AI comment the same as that human comment being struck cannot cause a discussion to be closed, because showing this RfC to the errant speedy closer should lead that closer to concede that they acted in error, against community consensus, because treating struck AI votes the same as struck human votes is a rejected proposal: namely, policies and guidelines do <u>''not''</u> {{tqq|allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI}}—the accepted status-quo premise of this discussion. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::[[WP:CCC]], as to {{tqq| The starter of this discussion wanted to make AITALK "stronger", but instead caused it to be undone}}, it was not my intent to undermine AITALK whatsoever. The language at AITALK definitely could have been written better to make clear there was already a consensus for this. And the only reason this was turned into an RFC was because of the constant bolded !votes. I had a feeling I didn't understand the full history of AITALK/HATGPT, hence why I explicitly said I was looking for feedback in advance of a proposal. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::A panel will be needed to fix the mess. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I do agree with your analysis, although I don't think [[WP:NOTBURO]] says "we should" to anything. But yes, if anything, AITALK should be at least retained: the current discussion is not specific enough to find a consensus to revert it in part or as a whole.{{pb}}However, as the example that started this whole discussion showed, I don't think AITALK made it explicit enough that hatted AI content was to be treated as a struck nomination and explicitly allowed for an instant closure. The spirit of the policy certainly did, but the letter didn't, thus this discussion. Mostly because "the spirit" is something vague and, ultimately, a bit subjective. And having the policy itself make it explicit would remove this disagreement. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 10:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm pretty sure the LLM generated the ''entire request''. If you go back to the diff I posted, go look at that page as it looked during the first edits: they inserted it into the wrong place on the page, and I get the impression it didn't know how to fill in certain fields so it left some blank. But if it makes any difference, I also object to the "opening statement" being majority-written by an LLM. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*::By "entire request", you mean only the first of the 10 comments posted in that RM by the newbie, but none of the significant and substantive arguing you and the OP did over (a) the actual question and (b) whether an LLM was used in the first comment, right?
*::I'm somehow getting a different feeling about which part was the waste of time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' — Blueboar presents a convincing enough argument in favor of this proposal. I consider this to be an extension of existing policy. Talking about discussions over whether a proposal is AI-generated should be conducted in criticisms of the existing HATGPT rule. <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 03:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{strikethrough|Support clarifying existing policy}}{{small|this wasn't a formal RFC when I initially commented and as of now it's unclear what exactly people are !Voting on}} to make it clear that using an LLM to generate opening statements of discussions is just as unacceptable as using an LLM to generate replies. As Cryptic alluded to above, using LLM to generate substantive content in discussions (as opposed to minor copyediting/formatting) is essentially the same or [[WP:NOSHARE|allowing someone else to log in and edit using your account]]. If we do not allow editors to direct their (human) personal secretary to edit on their behalf, why would we tolerate the same conduct when the secretary is replaced by an LLM? Or, from a different angle, content that is substantively copy/pasted from LLM output should be treated like [[WP:COPYPASTE|content that is copy/pasted from other sources]], which if not attributed goes against [[WP:PLAGIARISM]]. Policy aside, I believe any editor who generates content wholesale with an LLM should as a matter of courtesy/transparency indicate that they have done so, and indicate the model and prompt used. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|why would we tolerate the same conduct when the secretary is replaced by an LLM}}{{snd}}What we're seeing in AI use is way worse than that. It's less a human using an AI secretary to generate content, and more an AI entity using a human (or ventriloquist dummy in human form) to post ''its'' content. It's not a human using AI -- it's AI using humans. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC) P.S. BTW, indicating {{tq|the model and prompt used}} isn't enough, since in general an LLM's response to whatever you just asked it is shaped by the entirety of one's prior interactions with it.
:I think you'd be fully within your rights to close that discussion per existing consensus. If anything, the text at [[WP:HATGPT]] is too watered down from [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions|the RfC closure]], which said that "if a comment is written entirely by an LLM, it is (in principle) not appropriate". IMO, something to that effect should be added to the policy text. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]])</span> 21:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::I also agree with making that change to the text. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Whether or not we need to expand HATGPT, I'm all in favor (aka '''support''' in a broad sense) of shutting down any discussion that wastes the community's time, and anything that resulted from some software "thinking" about it, rather than a human thinking about it, falls in the category of shut-it-down. Base it on IAR, or base it on common sense. I see some pearl-clutching about BITE and AGF, but that strikes me as ''so'' 2024. We are facing something that can scale to a magnitude that we will be unable to deal with it, unless we are realistic about the need to deal with it assertively. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Just to add to my previous comments… If it is felt that HATGPT needs to specify that it applies to the explanatory language of a proposal as well as subsequent comments, I don’t object to amending HATGPT. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Seeing the ongoing disagreements about BITE, something additional that occurs to me is that the community has long been at least reasonably comfortable with [[WP:Competence is required]]. It seems to me that editors who feel like the only way that they can participate in the community is by letting LLMs do their writing for them are running afoul of competence. (I'm referring here to LLMs, not assistive technologies such as screen readers.) We don't regard it as a BITE situation when we issue a [[WP:NOTHERE]] block, and I think that a user who equates LLM-generated content with encyclopedic content is likely to be not-here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[WP:AITALK]] already allows for the collapsing and striking of LLM-generated proposals, since they are a [[subset]] of LLM-generated comments, but this particular bullet point does not yet comment on whether the ensuing discussion should be closed. Discussions that lead with LLM-generated comments are often unconstructive, and frequently devolve into arguments about LLM use or [[WP:BLUD|bludgeoning]] with additional LLM-generated comments. Since there appears to be some uncertainty about whether LLM-led discussions can be closed, [[WP:AITALK]] should be amended to clarify that they can be, per a combination of the existing [[WP:AITALK]] text and this portion of the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Marking a closed discussion|Marking a closed discussion]] section: {{xt|"If a discussion has been so disruptive or pointless that it is better for editors to waste no further time even looking at it, the alternative templates {{tlx|Hidden archive top}} and {{tlx|Hidden archive bottom}} can be used instead, to produces a similar 'closure box' around it, but collapsed to hide the content, as with [[#Off-topic posts|off-topic threads]]"}}, although any collapsible template would work. An editor who posts an LLM-generated proposal can resubmit the proposal if they manually write it in their own words.{{pb}}I also support Pythoncoder's suggestion to have [[WP:AITALK]] explicitly designate LLM-generated comments as inappropriate, in line with the consensus at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions}}. In practice, LLM-generated comments are already recognized as [[WP:DE|disruptive]], especially when [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE|undisclosed]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 07:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Unless a detection method is found that is consistently accurate I don't really trust others vibes to remove users votes in something. It is important to remember the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions previous] consensus on the topic, specifically {{tq|The word "generative" is very, very important here, though. This consensus does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments. In practice, this sets a good lower bound for obviousness, as any comment that could conceivably be LLM-assisted is, by definition, not obviously LLM-generated.}} In practice most LLM-assisted comments are not noticed because it does not actually matter. Anything else can be dealt with existing policy. I am similarly not convinced by the pearl clutching on wasting editors time, Wikipedia editors have been able to do that for decades without using LLMs and the addition of them has not been a noticeable uptick in it that I can tell. This is not some crazy crisis that will doom the pedia, it is a tool, nothing more. The usual garbage in garbage out applies in most issues with using the tool. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] This quote and archive link might be what you were asking about on my talk page. @[[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]], you might consider what @[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] has shared above, the amount of LLM content being found in articles has increased significantly, and usage of it on talk pages is only going to get worse. You call it {{tqq|pearl clutching}}, but if the scale of LLM use increases then it will be a significantly bigger time sink for Wikipedia editors. At what point do we all just shut off our browsers and just let LLM's argue back and forth on our behalf with a sentence or two to get them started? I edit and comment on talk pages because I want to interact with other editors, not people running chatbots and copying/pasting their responses or proposals in bad faith with little actual time investment on their part. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If you don't want to interact with a comment/user then don't interact with that comment/user, nobody is forcing you to do that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::What a lame cop-out. You could say the same thing about anyone who stirs the pot in nonproductive ways -- "Well, no one's forcing ''you''." But ''someone'' has to deal with AI-generated vapid crap proposals, discussion posts, and so on. No matter who grits their teeth to do it, it's time that could have been productively spent elsewhere. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tpq|But ''someone'' has to deal with AI-generated vapid crap proposals, discussion posts, and so on.}} firstly no they don't - such posts can be simply ignored by everyone, but secondly if someone ''does'' choose to deal with them then can do so under current policy without needing this proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::If everyone ignores it because of AI crap, then the clueless (or malicious) AI user declares [[WP:SILENCE]] and makes a misguided change. Then someone has to deal with it, if only by reverting. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Eh probably not though right? Could that happen? Sure, just the same as someone making a terrible proposal, but is it likely to get no push back? Almost certainly not, this is the internet amd the need to be right is far too strong. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Thryduulf was suggesting everyone can ignore the proposal. I followed that idea to a logical conclusion. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::You can claim SILENCE, but the next editor can revert you, which is proof that there's no silent agreement. Additionally, some proposals (e.g., "Let's have a new guideline") require active support, not just the absence of objections. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Yes. And then the LLM-user throws a fit because they were reverted without discussion, and people have to engage further. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 00:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I can attest that this is in fact how these things go. I recently dealt with a user who, when reverted, just asked his LLM to formulate an argument contesting the reversion and proceeded to bludgeon talk pages with multiple AI-generated sections per day. They were ultimately indeffed as [[WP:NOT HERE]] and [[WP:CIR]], but not before me and other editors wasted tens of thousands of bytes refuting the disjointed and incoherent logic of his bot and tracking down fabricated references. Even after the block it took me multiple hours (all my wiki time for several days) to go through all the articles this user has edited and reverse the damage. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::No Wikipedian should be forced to interact with LLM generated proposals. '''Period.''' If I had my druthers, WMF would reallocate all development resources to at minimum a way to tag edits automatically as containing LLM content, and at best, flat out rejecting LLM edits from new/unverified users (and then tagging anything allowed through so people can know what they're dealing with). One discussion provided by @[[User:EEng|EEng]] above is [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1305669496#User:JoseyWales019_creating_AI-generated_mainspace_articles here], which has wasted how many hours of editor time? One of the remedies currently at [[WP:ARBATC2]] is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2/Proposed_decision#Editor_time_is_our_most_valuable_resource|this remedy]] which is currently passing 10-0. It states {{tqq|Wikipedia relies on the input of volunteer editors to maintain and produce its content, including managing its dispute mechanisms. The time editors can commit to this is one of its most precious resources. This resource should not be wasted pointlessly}}. LLM edits are a time sink.
*:::Why are you supporting wasting editor time, a {{tqq|precious resource}}, replying to and dealing with LLM generated AI-slop? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 03:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{tpq|No Wikipedian should be forced to interact with LLM generated proposals. Period.}} No Wikipedian ''is'', even without this proposal. If a comment is a disruptive waste of time, it can already be hatted/removed as a disruptive waste of time under current policy, regardless of whether it is or isn't LLM-generated meaning that whether it is or isn't LLM-generated is completely irrelevant meaning that this proposal, which encourages arguing about whether something is or is not LLM-generated, is the waste of time. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's like arguing that a particular speedy deletion is completely irrelevant if something can be deleted through AfD. We can and do approach issues through multiple ways which can involve different but overlapping considerations. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::No. To use your speedy deletion analogy this proposal is the equivalent of saying we need a speedy deletion criterion specifically for articles written primarily by editors who are or appear to be male that do not indicate importance. That's wholly redundant to the existing criterion that allows us to speedy delete articles that do not indicate importance regardless of who wrote them, but with added irrelevant, time wasting and disruptive arguing about whether or not the editor is or is not male. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I don't think tech choices are equivalent to demographic attributes, and find that a very poor comparison to make. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Then you have misunderstood what I've written. I'm not saying the two inputs are equivalent, I'm saying that the interactions of the proposed and theoretical policies with existing policies and community behaviour are the same. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I understood. It was a terrible analogy that also doesn't work. There's no need to obscure the discussion by asserting there are only proposed and theoretical polices, we already have existing guidelines around this topic that do not work in a way similar to weird assertions about gender. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Your comment makes it clear that you have either not actually understood or are not listening to anything that contradicts your opinion. Current policies and guidelines allow for anything that is disruptive to be closed/hatted regardless of whether it is LLM-generated or not. So the only things that are not covered are things which are not disruptive, and we should not be speedily closing things that are not disruptive. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::My opinion is that we shouldn't treat llm use like an inherent demographic characteristic. We have specific guidelines to hat LLM-generated text already, so your assertion is incorrect. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] Unfortunately, it kind of is relevant, although maybe for a different reason. For unsurprising reasons finding reliable sources for this is a nightmare, but many surveys suggest [https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-which-countries-use-chatgpt-most-1950639 AI use is arguably more common in non-Western countries], and this is consistent with what I've seen on Wikipedia both in articlespace and on talk pages. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 14:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::There will be trends of llm use that correlate with different demographic aspects, but that does not make llm use a demographic aspect itself, similar to other trends that correlate with demographics. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I think we're on the same page then. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I talked to someone yesterday who uses LLMs regularly. Part of her job is responding to customer complaints. She has pretty severe dyslexia. What used to be an hour of carefully checking her spelling, grammar, and punctuation is now 30 seconds of explaining the problem to her phone, 60 seconds of reading the response out loud to make sure it's correct, and then sending it to the customer. I'm honestly not seeing much difference between this and the https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-bedbug-letter/ of bygone years, but I do think that "people with dyslexia" should be counted as "a demographic". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't know why I've been tagged here to be perfectly honest but my point seems to have been missed. Dealing with LLM slop is a direct way of improving the encyclopedia, whether you like it or not. Complaining about being "forced to" deal with LLM slop -- something that, again, you clearly are not being forced to do -- is not.
*::My other point seems to have been missed too, although that's probably on me for poorly communicating it: {{tq|the amount of LLM content being found in articles has increased significantly}} refers to ''pre-existing'' LLM content -- stuff that's been around since 2023-2024. We're past the point where we can worry about the "increasing scale" of LLM use (and I wish the recent news articles were more clear about this). The scale has already increased. Our options now are to deal with it or not. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 14:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tqq|I don't know why I've been tagged here to be perfectly honest}} I always feel rude referring to another editor's comments in larger discussions like this when given it's size they might miss it. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::No worries, that's what I figured. I probably would have missed it. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 18:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:"garbage in garbage out" does not apply to this tool at all. The close is a bit tricky in that respect, llms are inherently generative in how they operate, they cannot not generate. You can put great stuff in and get garbage out (and the reverse, sometimes). Treating it as a garbage in garbage out tool completely misunderstands what llms are. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::No, that is pretty much how they operate. Like most tools, even good input has the possibility to generate undesirable results. Being a good yser of the tool lets you recognize that and adjuts. That is garbage in garbage out, it still comes down to poor tool use. LLMs are not special in that regard I'm afraid. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Garbage in garbage out means that flawed inputs result in flawed outputs. If you have good input then the idiom doesn't apply at all. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Eh, if the input did not produce the desired result but anotherone did, it was a flawed input. Thats how that works. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Any loss at [[craps]] is also due to flawed input. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 19:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*This discussion just got reformatted as an RFC (for which I am partly responsible as I am one of the people who used bold !votey formatting in my comment), but on reflection it's unclear to me what the formal question being discussed is. Many people here seem to be rehashing prior discussions about the harm/lack of harm/current trends of LLM use on Wikipedia, which is unnecessary as prior discussions have already established a strong consensus that types of LLM use people are complaining about here are disruptive and should be hatted/removed. As far as I can tell, the only real question posed here is whether a proposal whose opening statement is hattable/removable under existing consensus may also be closed without further discussion. The answer is obviously yes, no RFC required. From [[WP:CLOSE]]: {{tqq|In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive.}} The community has already [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions|decided]] that certain types of LLM use are disruptive, and proposals that are disruptive are already subject to closure. What else is there to discuss? -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The question put forth here is should content generated by LLMs automatically be hatted/closed if certain tools register it as highly condident its AI generated. The previous discussion was based around bad or disruptive content vs all content in general. Which the previous RFC makes a distinction at. That is why this is a problem, its an expansion past and opposed to the previous RFC. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Since that RM was disruptive (and in fact all the !votes were Oppose anyway) my understanding is that under current community norms it could and should have been closed at any point. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:As was done at the example provided by me at the start, we ''did in fact'' HAT the proposal, but the discussion remained open (and !voting occurred). This RFC is further clarifying that for proposals of any type (RFC, xFD, etc), the discussion can simply be closed (perhaps with a closure note of '''No action taken''' and a reference to [[WP:HATGPT]]), sparing concerned editors from having to monitor such conversations for a week or longer. There's also the lingering question of how to handle such a situation after !voting has commenced. Void the discussion and leave it to anyone invested in the idea to start a new discussion (not utilizing LLM)? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If there is productive ongoing discussion, closing it would be counter-productive (and in some cases disruptive). If there is ongoing discussion that is not productive, then existing policies and guidelines allow it to be closed. There is no need for anything else. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think fighting against AI/LLM is a losing battle (we'll see AI-generated textbooks,[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/learning-assessment/2024/12/13/ai-assisted-textbook-ucla-has-some-academics] AI-generated books/novels,[https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-driving-new-surge-of-sham-books-on-amazon/] AI-generated encyclopedias (?), etc. sooner or later). But I '''support''' this proposal in general. I would add an exception, though, and say that if the editor prefaces their AI-generated proposal with something along the lines of: "I've used AI/a chatbot to help me generate this proposal", then I would be fine with letting the proposal stand. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 15:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Some1|Some1]] We do indeed have an AI-generated encyclopedia[https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-worlds-second-largest-wikipedia-is-written-almost-entirely-by-one-bot/], although it precedes llms. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks, and I just learned that there's something called [https://www.wikigen.ai/ wikigen.ai]... [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::That thing seems to just make summaries of our articles for people who are lazy, as well as occasionally making up some nonsense. I tried on ''[[Macrobdella decora]]'', a topic I'm very familiar with, and it told me "The leech's closest relative is believed to be the European medicinal leech, ''[[Hirudo medicinalis]]''." which is quite a doozy given that that species is in a different family altogether. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 19:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::A simple fill-in-the-blank boilerplate form, using technology simpler than the [[Mail merge]] word processing button in the 1980s, is not "AI-generated" content. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::That very much depends on what you mean by "AI-generated". Some editors have previously noted that their definition of that term includes essentially anything touched by anything that can be called an "AI", others use a definition closer to "has no human input after the prompt". There are of course many definitions between these extremes, and a great many of them (maybe even the majority) have been espoused (explicitly or implicitly) by at least one editor in discussions of AI content on Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any objective way to state that any one of these definitions is more or less correct than any other. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:We do have [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]]. It isn't enforced because it isn't policy, but it probably should be. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*That mention just above, of [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]], hits upon the same thing that I have been starting to think. It might be a very good idea, and even something where we might find agreement between editors who oppose all LLM content, and editors who argue that the content should be judged on its merits, if we were to make disclosure a matter of policy, and enforceable. I'm not making a formal proposal – yet. Just floating the idea. We have, in the past, felt like paid editing had the potential to overwhelm Wikipedia with unacceptable content. But requiring disclosure has been working reasonably well, all things considered. I think the same principle could apply here – at least as a start, pending on what develops in the future if the scale of AI reaches a level where we would have to consider more. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as stated per PackMecEng. I don't think there is any clear way to differentiate between LLM-generated proposals and human-generated proposals as of right now: I don't trust so-called AI-detecting websites and I ''definitely'' don't trust editors to do this based on vibes. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I believe that adding policies restricting the use of LLMs is unnecessary [[WP:CREEP]], and that any problems arising from the use of LLMs can be handled with previously existing policies, guidelines, and customary usage. In addition, given the uncertainties of correctly identifying LLM-produced material, I think any procedure such as hatting suspected LLM-produced material has the potential of encouraging the biting of newcomers. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 00:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Already covered by [[WP:AITALK]]'''. If editors engage on the substance by supporting the AI-generated proposal, the discussion cannot be closed. If they only oppose the proposal, which is then struck according to AITALK, [[WP:SK#1]] applies, in the deletion process, and by analogy in other processes (absence of a driving rationale for a change from the status quo). If the nomination is struck, its rationale becomes formally absent. If there are support !votes, they take the place of the nominator, as a rationale or rationales is present in them.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The move proposal cited by the OP seemed reasonably coherent and to the point. Its only fault seemed to be that it was rather prolix. But this discussion here demonstrates that humans are quite capable of generating lots of bloviation without AI assistance. For such general problems then you need general procedural rules such as arbcom's 500 word limit. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Request panel close of this discussion'''. Because there is a problem with the question (the problem is discussed at length in the discussion itself), this discussion is very unfocused, and correctly interpreting it will require a panel. Otherwise, findings could be absurd, uninentionally ironic, could distort existing policy, etc. Three administrators will be needed to assess the {{tq|quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy}}, and they need to reality-check amongst themselves on what current Wikipedia policy actually says to do that correctly. A single (well-intentioned and responsible) closer could make an error, but a panel is unlikely to.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:If those who volunteer to evaluate consensus wish to do so in a group, by all means. I disagree, though, with mandating that it be done by a group. There are numerous experienced evaluators of consensus who I feel have established their reliability in producing considered evaluations. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*::* '''Support LLM generated commets''' helps enhance efficiency by synthesizing complex information into digestible forms
*::[[User:Umar Halid|Umar Halid]] ([[User talk:Umar Halid|talk]]) 11:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It's clear that there isn't consensus support for the given proposal, but I do think there needs to be some sort of guide on the [[WP:Deletion]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CFD]], [[WP:MERGEPROP]], etc. pages articulating what to do with AI/LLM generated proposals and how to respond. Most editors aren't going to be aware of [[WP:HATGPT]] so their is a need to formulate some sort of guideline language on the various pages. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
===Alternative approach: make transparency policy===
An idea that came up in passing, above, is to make [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]], or something similar, a policy. Personally, I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above, but I recognize that not all editors feel that way, so I'm checking if something like this might be easier to get consensus on. What I'm hearing is that some editors feel that the use of LLMs should not be regarded as inherently disruptive. I actually think it is, but I can understand the disagreement, and I think that requiring disclosure would be better than nothing.
What I'm thinking of is to take wording similar to what is currently at LLMDISCLOSE, and put it on a standalone page, which would then be presented to the community as a proposed policy. I see this as somewhat analogous to what we currently do with COI and paid editing. Don't forbid it, but ask editors who use LLMs to be transparent about it. This would make it easier to track, and avoid confusion.
Does this idea have enough support to justify pursuing it further? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I would support this. Like you I prefer a strong approach, but I suspect that LLMs will end up like things such as COI and paid editing – strongly discouraged, disclosure required, but not actually banned. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 00:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:To clarify, does your proposal include repealing the [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#LLM-generated|current guidance on hiding program-generated comments]]? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Good question. I'm still trying to feel out how other editors regard the idea, so I'm willing to go either way, but I would lean towards treating them as not being mutually exclusive. In other words, I would lean towards saying that the first editor, the one who posts an LLM-generated comment, is required by policy to disclose that it was LLM-generated, and that the second editor, the one who wants to hide that comment, is permitted to do so. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::In that case, the original question being posed still needs to be resolved. Does a proposal (minus any commentary) fall under the current guidance? If not, then is there consensus to hide proposals whose text was generated by a program? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqq|In that case, the original question being posed still needs to be resolved.}} Cool. You can do that above, this section is about Tryp's proposal. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just clarifying this is a parallel proposal, rather than an alternative approach that replaces the existing approach. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Strictly speaking, I'm trying to assess what other editors think, so this isn't (yet) a proposal in the formal sense. But yes, I'm inclined to approach this as a parallel proposal, unless I get feedback here to formulate the proposal differently. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Your proposal is unrelated to AITALK, and making LLMDISCLOSE a policy is a stronger approach than having AITALK remain what it already is, as the non-approach above is an unintentional rehash of the AITALK RfC, which had already resolved with the adoption of the AITALK approach, about which you said that not everyone agrees, but it's already a consensus-settled matter from just several months ago, and [[WP:NOTUNANIMITY|consensus is not unanimity]]. That is why you should not have said {{tqq| I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above}} and should not have framed your proposal as a weaker alternative to AITALK. I am the original author of LLMDISCLOSE ([[Special:Diff/1134431809]]), but I refuse to !vote on it in a way that is premised on AITALK being effectively abrogated based on a confused rehash. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, maybe we were just misunderstanding each other. It was never my intention to frame what I suggest here "as a weaker alternative to AITALK". Sorry if that's what you thought I was saying. I was trying to say that requiring disclosure is, well, in a sense, "weaker" than prohibiting LLM-generated proposals. And I was doing that in hopes of gaining support from editors who oppose the proposal above (which I, personally, support). But I don't want these issues to become a fight between us. You thought of LLMDISCLOSE. I like LLMDISCLOSE. I'm looking to promote something like LLMDISCLOSE from an essay to a policy. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Not all editors feel that way but it already passed when [[WP:AITALK]] was adopted, and consensus is [[WP:NOTUNANIMITY]]. This l2 section is now a weakly and badly framed proposal to adopt again something that was already adopted very recently. It is all a bad misunderstanding. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I must be confused, when I visit [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] I don't see a {{tl|policy}} tag on it. I see the whole page tagged with {{tl|essay}}. Can you point to the ''existing'' consensus for [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] to be tagged as policy? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I was referring to {{tq|Personally, I'm in favor of a stronger approach, such as the one above, but I recognize that not all editors feel that way,}}. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 19:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The way I understand it, [[WP:AITALK]] is part of the Talk page guideline, so it's a behavioral guideline rather than a policy. Although it has consensus, it also is written in terms of "may be struck or collapsed", rather than "must". [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] is currently on an essay page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The same section of the same guideline says {{green|Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban}}. Naturally, that means that sock comments and nominations are ordinarily discounted, once detected. Do we need a VPP discussion to adopt a policy for the same? No. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::When I'm ready to make a formal proposal, I'm inclined to have a community discussion, on the theory that policies should be adopted in that way. If it turns out that support is so clear that it becomes a [[WP:SNOW]] kind of thing, that would be great, but I'm not going to presuppose that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The community discussion was had, just several months ago: [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#h-LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions-20241202001200|LLM/chatbot comments in discussions]] —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Strong support, we need to stop with the mixed messages. Also, if enough people do disclose it gives us information/edit patterns that can be used to track/identify undisclosed AI edits. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong support''' making the [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] section policy ({{tl|policy}} will need to be updated to have a {{para|section|yes}} option for this use case as {{tl|guideline}} already does). This should be uncontroversial. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Undisclosed LLM use is already considered an aggravating factor in conduct disputes, and I support formalizing this to convey our expectations more clearly. Per Locke Cole, using {{tl|Policy section top}} on [[WP:LLM]] and {{tlg|Policy|type{{=}}section}} on [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] would be a simple way to implement this. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy in the way suggested by Locke Cole and Newslinger. I'm still confused by a lot of the discussion above, but it has been my position for a long time now that disclosure of LLM use (when the LLM is contributing substantive content) is necessary to avoid violation of of [[WP:PLAGIARISM]] and [[WP:NOSHARE]], and I would like to make that expectation clear in a way that can easily be explained to new editors. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy, which is ''de facto'' how it is usually treated already. Making it clear upfront avoids leaving a minefield for new editors having to learn unwritten social norms about LLM use. We already require disclosure for paid editing, or for the use of multiple accounts, and it doesn't prevent us from having additional regulations. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' making [[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]] policy. I also think editors who violate disclosure should be blocked from editing.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It wouldn't break my heart if there were a [[WP:1LLM]] or [[WP:3LLM]] rule similar to [[WP:1RR]]/[[WP:3RR]]. But even without that, if this were policy, it would be textbook [[WP:DE]] (especially if done so after receiving a {{tl|uw-a1}} on up to {{tl|uw-ai4}} on their talk page with no sign of stopping). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Regarding 1LLM/3LLM, I would say the problem is more quality than quantity? If people use LLMs to fix their spelling and nothing else, or as an advanced regex, then using them once or ten times isn't an issue. While someone pasting unreviewed LLM text in a discussion is problematic even if done only once (and can already been hatted). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Since this is just a discussion about disclosure, it would do nothing to get in the way of any further kinds of actions (in other words, it won't say that admins are prevented from blocking someone who is disruptive). I agree that there is room for judgment in evaluating how the LLM has been used, and that admins have room for judgment in whether to block or warn someone. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::If 1/3LLM is specifically for undisclosed, blatant LLM output, and isn't a restriction on additional actions (like 3RR doesn't prevent blocks for other kinds of edit warring), then it could definitely work. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::This is interesting. My thinking up to this point was to go as far as proposing policy that, in effect, says something to the effect of "you are required to disclose". So if someone does not disclose, they would be violating the proposed policy. What you are saying is to institute a more formal process over how many chances an editor gets before crossing a "bright line". I'm interested in what other editors think about that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I don't know if a more formal process is really needed – despite the name, it feels more like a natural continuation of the warning process, rather than a per-article thing like 3RR. So maybe, instead of a bright line, it could be a guideline on how much someone should be warned before formal sanctions? 3LLM could also help avoid editors being blocked based on one person's hunch, if we require three different people to warn someone for undisclosed LLM use. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This would help editors make informed decisions about where to focus their efforts. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 20:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterfox&diff=prev&oldid=1117934878 your first edit to a talk page] was only a couple of years ago. If we'd had an official {{tl|policy}} back then that said "No posting comments on the talk page using all lowercase" or "No using hyphens instead of asterisks for bullet points", would you have realistically been able to learn about that policy and comply with it before posting your comment?
*:How do you think you would have felt, if you came back the next day and found your comment hidden with a note saying something like "Collapsed violation of formatting rules"? Would you have felt welcomed and valued, or rejected and confused? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::WAID, I'm not sure from your question whether or not you have concerns about the proposal here, but I would welcome suggestions from you or anyone else about how to improve it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::There is a vast gulf between petty rules about formatting issues and rules asking for original thought. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 22:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Is there, in practice? Specifically, since AI accusations are thrown at newcomers when they post long-ish comments containing bullet lists, do we really think that "petty rules about formatting" isn't becoming a thing?
*:::And do we really need original thought in every case? How "original" is "Support per X", followed by a signature? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm unsure what relevance this has to my support for a policy requiring editors disclose when they use an LLM.
*::- {{tq|"would you have realistically been able to learn about that policy and comply with it before posting your comment?"}} – no
*::- {{tq|"How do you think you would have felt"}} – surprised
*::If someone collapsed my comment because it wasn't properly capitalized or precisely formatted I would have found that strange. If someone collapsed my comment because it wasn't my own original words, unfiltered by a predictive model, I would have found that deeply reasonable.
*::Some other editors would no doubt feel as you posited; however, the well-being of the project comes before editors' personal feelings. The community has decided that use of an LLM in discussions is disruptive enough to the functioning of the encyclopedia to warrant the option for removal from immediate view. I don't disagree.
*::Perhaps we could do more to inform editors who's comments have been collapsed. Currently {{tl|Collapse LLM top}} links to [[WP:AITALK]], which is accurate, but uninformative. It's the same as saying "this comment has been collapsed because there is a rule that says it can be collapsed". Maybe modifying WP:AITALK to provide a bit of the rationale behind why the policy exists could help. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 23:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I think that's a very good point, so I just did this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATalk_page_guidelines&diff=1308001112&oldid=1305906440]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::I think the modification that we really need is: Don't surprise people with punishments (such as collapsing comments, yelling at them, or saying that since they used an LLM to polish up their own original idea, then their idea is bad) if they didn't have a realistic ability to learn about the rule beforehand.
*::::I don't think {{!xt|The community has decided that use of an LLM in discussions is disruptive}}. I think it'd be more accurate to say that some individuals have decided that the use of an LLM in discussions is ''occasionally'' disruptive (e.g., many long comments posted rapidly – which almost never happens, BTW).
*::::Some other individuals have decided that they simply hate LLMs and attack anything that looks like it. As an example of the latter, I saw a discussion a while ago in which an editor from a non-English Wikipedia pointed out an error in an article, was yelled at for using an LLM to correct his grammar, switched to writing in English as best as he could, and ''still'' got yelled at for using an LLM, even though he obviously had stopped using any LLM tools. It took several days for the offended editors to stop yelling about LLMs, notice that he was correct about the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] violation in the article, and fix it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} While some editors engage in overly knee-jerk reaction against LLMs, some, I worry, are far too conciliatory towards them. Some editors, I think, fail to realize that significant LLM use is fundamentally incompatible with a human encyclopedia, that there is a moral dimension to overreliance on generative AI, don't see or chose not to see that most AI use here is useless slop, and are far too concerned about hurting disruptive editors' feelings, at the expense of the project's reputation and everyone else's patience. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I think the best indication of community consensus on LLM and discussion is here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#h-LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions-20241202001200], and while nuanced, it's more negative than what you say here. Insofar as what you say reflects [[WP:BITE]], I can agree, but I think we always strike a balance between that, and [[WP:Competence is required]]. We have over-insistence on BLP, too – see [[WP:CRYBLP]]. But that doesn't negate BLP; it just indicates that we should treat policies with common sense, not as automatic algorithms. Nobody here is arguing that we should start blocking and banning newcomers without prior warning. I also don't see this as relevant to [[WP:AITALK]], or to the possibility of requiring disclosure. In fact, disclosure is potentially a way to expedite learning. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|"Don't surprise people with punishments"}} – Collapsing comments isn't a punishment, and having a message collapsed for using an LLM is ''easily'' addressed, just redraft and resubmit a comment without using a model, it's not a big deal.
*:::::{{tq|"if they didn't have a realistic ability to learn about the rule beforehand"}} – Nobody fully knows all of the 200+ policies and guidelines on Wikipedia when they start editing, they are expected to make mistakes and learn through being corrected and informed. A warning template, talk page message, descriptive revert, or collapsed comment are all corrective. None are punishment, and all are opportunities to learn and adjust.
*:::::Editors electing to badger, yell at, or otherwise insult someone is a separate issue, and is disruptive irrespective of [[WP:AITALK]]. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 00:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:I see that people are leaving ''support'' comments, but I'm confused by what they are supporting. Are they endorsing that you start a formal RfC, or that the policy actually change? If the second, I disagree, largely because I don't know what "incorporates LLM output" means. If we make LLMDISCLOSE policy, we should revise the text to make "incorporates" more specific. Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 23:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm interpreting it as supporting having a formal RfC. I suspect that some editors think that they are supporting an actual policy, but that would mean that they likely would support having an RfC to do that. At this point, I'm assessing whether there is enough support to keep going with it, and it looks like there is. I'm also interested in feedback that I can use to make a proposed policy that improves on what the essay page currently says, so I'm taking note of every comment here that does that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Great, looking forward to the RfC. One specific thing that LLMs are great for that you should think about whether it should/shouldn't be covered by a policy form of LLMDISCLOSE: translating random bibtex/ACM/MLA/Chicago references into the appropriate <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template, for sources that lack a URL or that have a publisher URL that our Zotero-based connectors can't extract correct metadata for. Trivially, an edit I make in this way "incorporates LLM output", but it's functionally the same as using the Zotero connector: I input the URL/DOI/ISBN/citation, then correct the (often incorrect) wikitext output. It's not a ''problem'' to require disclosure in this case, but I do think it probably isn't ''helpful'' in the way this policy is intended to be.
:::Other edge cases that might be worth thinking about while drafting the RfC: using LLMs with web search to conduct a WP:BEFORE or to find sources I might have missed, using sources discovered in search engine AI summaries (e.g. Google's Gemini summary), making edits based on LLM critiques, using LLMs for template discovery ("I want to do X on English Wikipedia, is there a wikitext template that does that?"), or using LLMs for suggesting missing See Also links (this is a task that other ML models exist for already; it might be weird to require disclosure when an LLM is used to generate suggestions but not when other 3rd-party ML models are used). Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 00:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah, these edge cases should definitely be considered while drafting the RfC. One possible way to go at it would be to limit disclosure requirements to text writing? Alternatively, we could use a [[threshold of originality|TOO]]-like threshold (which would match with the licensing attribution concerns). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Text writing/editing definitely, plus anything involving interpretation of sources. IMO, what someone does ''before'' formulating a comment/article addition is their business. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 13:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::A lot of those functions aren't really engaging the ''generative'' function of LLMs that is at the root of our issues with it, so perhaps it would be useful for policy to emphasize that our concern is more with that generative aspect and its relationship to the text the end user adds to the project. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, precisely! But I think it's not so easy to word this intent. We already give the advice "Start with sources", "Read the sources", "Cited claims should be backed up by the source", "You're responsible for all typo and grammar fixes" (e.g. via [[WP:AWB|AutoWikiBrowser]]), etc. Part of the issue here is that we think (or at least I think) that LLM use for drafting text correlates strongly with lack of due diligence, or more bluntly with [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]] concerns. Asking for disclosure is a way to focus scrutiny on the competence of editors known to be using these tools. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 15:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ah I see, yes I agree that drafting text by interpreting LLM-generated summaries/references, rather than personally reading and summarizing the sources directly, is a very foreseeable issue that wouldn't be as easily picked up without disclosure. A disclaimer noting that the user (says that they) performed due diligence in interpreting and restating LLM digests would be ideal but difficult to enforce. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes I think plausibility of enforcement is a real problem for enacting this proposal. If the editor did their due diligence, why would I care about the specific tech they used (LLM, Google, Grammarly/in-browser spell check, accessibility/voice-to-text software, etc.)? If the editor didn't do due diligence, the only benefit of disclosure I can see is if LLM disclosures correlate meaningfully with bad edits{{snd}} at which point it's a useful vandalism detection tool, similar to applying greater scrutiny to edits that insert the text "?utm_source=chatgpt". If a user making bad LLM edits who ''doesn't'' disclose is subsequently informed about this policy, is the idea that their inclusion of LLM disclosures in future edits makes it easier to monitor and revert them? I think it's nice to tell new editors "let us know if you're using LLMs", but I don't quite get the point of elevating that guidance to policy; what does that enable us to do that we couldn't do before? Making repeated bad edits was already sanctionable. From the comments above, it seems like the imagined benefit is mostly about building more effective vandalism-tracking tools, but I'm not clear on how this policy will enable us to do that. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 19:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm watching this discussion closely, and finding it very helpful. You've raised the first argument against going forward with it. Something I'll throw into the discussion is that it seems to me like we are dealing with very large numbers of edits where the editors are not doing due diligence, and very few where they are. (Yeah, citation needed.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Unfortunately, this feels like an unanswerable empirical question to me. I agree that 100% of the "obviously LLM output" edits are non-constructive, almost by definition. The problem is the more subtle edits that use LLMs but in a way that{{snd}}because of the editor's due diligence{{snd}} is not apparent. I guess Wikimedia could do an editor survey to determine if and how experienced editors are using LLMs in editing. Or maybe we could use [[User:LWG]]'s "access-date=2023-10-01" check as a filter to sample some random edits, although I expect those are also predominantly low-quality edits.
:::::::::Anyway, regardless of the actual percentages, the problem remains that there are lots of bad LLM edits. Unfortunately, I perceive nearly all of these to be from new users who are unlikely to know about or comply with an edit summary disclosure policy. Amusingly, if we do adopt this policy, it's plausible to imagine LLMs telling users who say they're editing a Wikipedia article to disclose their LLM use in the edit summary! Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 22:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] One concrete thing that can be done is for the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer_Tasks Newcomer Tasks] feature to mention it. I've noticed that a lot of AI edits by new editors seem to start there, especially with the copy-editing tasks. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I kind of assumed you were already taking this objection into account, based on the analogous discussions on paid-contribution disclosures in which you participated. (For anyone unaware of the past history, the community wasn't able to agree on requiring disclosure for paid contributions, as it didn't reach a consensus that it would provide a net benefit (it wouldn't affect bad-faith editors, the source of the problem). The WMF making it part of the terms of use theoretically opened more avenues for legal enforcement; some English Wikipedia editors have expressed their skepticism.) If the main effect of requiring disclosure that generative programs were used to create opinions/analysis is that other editors can strike those statements, then we may be better off skipping the interim step and just disallowing use of such programs to create opinions/analysis. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Is there a particular RfC you're referencing here? I'm not familiar with this history, so I'd appreciate a link if you have one. Thanks, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, not any one RfC. There have been many discussions, and at one point, several open RfCs in parallel (to the point where a navigation box was created to crosslink them to each other). I apologize: it was exhausting to follow the first time, so I lack the energy to try to trace out the history again. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|If the editor didn't do due diligence, the only benefit of disclosure I can see is if LLM disclosures correlate meaningfully with bad edits – at which point it's a useful vandalism detection tool}}. Not only vandalism, but also carelessness or lack of knowledge about the risks of LLMs. Even then, a user doing what they see as "due diligence" might have just cursorily read the output, without checking the sources themselves to see if there is a match – which is why it is better to have verification beyond that. Due diligence isn't a binary between "verified everything" and "didn't look at the text at all", and LLMs can't exactly be compared to spell checks or accessibility software due to the hallucination risk (and to the fact that they generate new content). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 19:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::By "vandalism" I mean "changes that require attention", including good-faith but malformed edits. This is similar to the notion of "damaging edits" used by the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES/RCFilters Recent Changes filters]. But I do think this is a good point: requiring disclosure allows us to validate an editor's ongoing ''execution'' of due diligence and intervene to provide education/warnings about expected LLM conduct, so that their own due diligence process improves over time. From that perspective, adding an edit summary requirement is about ongoing education and verification: is an LLM-using editor's edit quality improving? Aside: I don't think the comparison to other text editing softwares is completely inapt{{snd}} errors from spell-checking tools are very common on Wikipedia in my experience. (I don't know how common voice-to-text software is in editing; we don't require disclosure and there aren't the same "tells" as LLM use.) [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 22:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I think any required disclosure should focus on the use of LLMs to generate the actual content that is inserted into Wikipedia, not their use to find sources or aid the editor's understanding of the material they are writing about. Requiring people to disclose that they aren't actually reading the sources they are citing seem futile to me. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think we need to talk about whether people saying it should be "policy" actually mean an official {{tl|policy}} (i.e., not a {{tl|guideline}}), or if they really mean that it ought to be a rule that people normally follow. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Here are my thoughts on that, subject to feedback from everyone else. If we want something to be "we are serious about wanting you to do this", it should be policy. Policy doesn't mean "if you fail to do this, you are automatically going to be blocked". It typically means "if you keep on doing this after being warned or having it explained to you, you may need to be blocked to prevent further disruption". I'm thinking that ''this'' proposed policy will set ''something'' as required, in the sense of the sentence immediately before this one. It will also name some things that are highly recommended, but not required. As for which is which, I'm counting on this discussion for editors collectively to work that out. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't think it's a great idea to go through a whole [[WP:PROPOSAL]] to create a completely separate page over this. But if you think that 'I really mean it, this is a ''policy''" will work better than a guideline, then I think you should consider whether you can fit this into the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]]. (Though if you only mean this for talk pages, the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] would be a more appropriate fit.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, making an addition to [[WP:Editing policy]] could be a very good alternative to a standalone policy page. (I would still want an RfC to establish consensus for such a change to the editing policy, but it might not be as extensive a process as creating a standalone policy page.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::*What do editors think about the relative merits of creating a new standalone policy page, versus making a new section within [[WP:Editing policy]]? Personally, I find both options attractive, and I'm wondering about what others think would be the better way to go. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::*:RE: [[WP:EDITPOL]], it's a good idea, though I've always thought of EDITPOL as being strictly about articles/content. LLM disclosure should be ''anywhere on the project'' (user pages, draft pages, interface pages, project pages, templates, modules, etc. and their respective talk pages). Now it may be that it's as simple as calling out that disclosure is project-wide, not just related to content. But the other benefit of a dedicated LLM policy is that it can serve as a home for other AI/LLM rulemaking and discussion. It's also possible we eventually carve things out into transcludable sub-pages similar to what is done with [[WP:NFC]] and [[WP:NFCC]]; portions will be policy (e.g. hopefully this proposed disclosure, [[WP:AIIMAGES]], etc), portions will be guideline (e.g. the current [[WP:HATGPT]]), and still other parts could be informational (how to help with dealing with the onslaught of AI content). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::*::After thinking about this, although I'm naturally attracted to WAID's idea of using EDITPOL because the process would potentially be simpler, I think I'm persuaded by Locke's two points – that EDITPOL is primarily about mainspace and we would have to distinguish this as being about all namespaces, and that it would be useful to leave room for future additions to policy about LLMs, if they eventually come about – that I think it would probably be better to propose a new standalone policy page. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*Editors can still lie about their LLM usage (the same way editors can lie about not being a paid editor or a sockpuppet), but it's better than nothing I guess. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 23:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*Student editors are a non-representative subset of all editors, but I still think it's worth taking a look at what editors are saying at [[Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Delving deep into the key aspects of WikiEd's new AI training materials that signify enduring stuff]]. (I'm not going to put a link to here, there, because I don't want to create any appearance of canvassing.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
====Break - LLM proposals====
Just wanted to step back, because I think we are wandering off course. There are several different issues to deal with when it comes to using LLMs in Wikipedia that we seem to be conflating:
#Using an LLM for research (behind the scenes).
#Using an LLM to generate text and citations in '''ARTICLE''' Space.
#Using an LLM to generate text and arguments in '''TALK''' Space.
I think we need separate approaches to each of these: #1 is allowable, but we should advise editors to use with caution. #2 is NOT allowable at all. #3 is discouraged, but should be allowed with disclosure. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:At present, there is a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions|consensus against using programs to generate text and arguments in talk space]]. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:No to 2 and 3, while 1 still needs the sources to make Wiki progress. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''It's more complicated than a simple yes/no''' in all of these cases. As ever with LLM-related proposals nuance is missing. Using LLMs to generate text ''and'' then posting that text to Wikipedia ''without review'' is, by consensus, not allowed. However using LLMs to generate a framework around which you write your own words, using an LLM-based tool to check your text for e.g. spelling/grammar, using an LLM to assist with translation, using an LLM to suggest sources, and similar are all acceptable provided that the final review is human and (at least in talk spaces) the essential comments/arguments originate from a human. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm grasping for something, and would be thrilled if someone could come up with a solution for it. Is there a way to simply and clearly articulate what distinguishes the kind of harmless "behind the scenes" use of LLMs from the kinds of uses that are likely to be unhelpful? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Much of the problem with the LLM-related discussion is treating something that is inescapably complicated and nuanced as a binary "good/bad". However if you absolutely must have a single sentence, then the best I can come up with is: Problems are most likely when LLM output has not been subject to active human attention and review as (at least) the final step in the chain. That's not to say that all human-reviewed LLM output is good or that all LLM output unreviewed by a human is bad (because neither is true) it's just a probability gradient. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for that, I think it's useful. Just to clarify, it isn't like I must have a single sentence. Rather, I'm trying to figure out how to develop a policy proposal that will work (and even reflect the wishes of skeptics like you), and I'm using the discussion here to crowdsource ideas for how to do that. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Another thing to keep in mind is the future: Imagine that it's a few years from now. The technology has gotten much better. The results are usually indistinguishable for something like a talk-page comment. And, of very high importance, a whole generation of students has been explicitly taught to use these tools in school, so they think it's everyday normal behavior – no different from our generation using predictive typing to get spelling correct or to save a little time when typing an e-mail message.
:::::In this world of integrated AI tools, Wikipedia has a simplistic Official™ Policy that says Thou Must Disclose the Use of Any Generative AI Tools in Thy Talk Page Comments.
:::::Do you think that policy will be respected? I've got some doubts. I'm wondering if it might sound a lot like "Please disclose that you're using a computer, 'cause us old folks need reminders about the existence of all this newfangled technology".
:::::If we adopt a policy to require disclosure in discussions, I wonder if we'll see [[WP:CUSTOMSIG]] used to make sure that every possible comment is disclosed. Instead of "(please ping)", it'll be "(uses LLMs)". Or maybe a user script to add a disclosure (e.g., "may have used an LLM") as an edit summary if the edit is over ~100 words.
:::::Wikibooks discussed an AI policy a while ago. Their risks are higher than ours, but some of the proposals were massive overreach (e.g., if you use an LLM, you need to post the entire transcript of your discussion with the LLM on the talk page). I think this is much more reasonable, but I wonder if it [[wikt:en:have_legs|has legs]], or if we'll be repealing it a decade from now. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::On the glass-half-full side, any Wikipedia policy that lasts a decade is a success. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The tools have gotten better, and anecdotally it feels easier to find AI-generated edits from the earlier LLMs of 2023, even though you'd think it'd be the opposite as there's more time for people to revise the text.
::::::That's part of why I am pushing for as full disclosure as possible -- what tool, what prompts, what process -- because if we can get a reasonable sample set of edits made with ChatGPT 4 vs. ChatGPT 5 vs. Gemini , etc., we might be able to determine some indicators of AI use that haven't been (apologies for the AI-esque language) widely publicized yet.
::::::Not a fan of the 100-words cutoff though. In practice, this will be done via diff size, and a lot of AI edits revise text substantially but show small increase/decreases in page history. And even if the edit actually is small, it can still contain hallucinations -- for instance, inaccurate or non-neutral photo captions. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::No need to rehash all the previous discussions, so, yea, it's binary. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You can't just handwave away all the arguments that explain all the detail and nuance and then say there isn't any nuance. That's not how things work in the real world (which is the only world we, as mature and intelligent adults, should be dealing with). It's absolutely not a case of "LLM = bad". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::If one wants to consult an LLM/AI, one can do that without the need to do so via Wiki/a Wiki editor. If we all want to include LLM/AI stuff into WP, then just stick a google type analysis or a prompt together with suitable caveats into the main text of articles that anyone can consult if they please. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] Just curious, what is your thoughts on the required disclosure (above)? I understand where Blueboar is coming from, but any step we can take towards transparency is a step worth taking, but curious how you feel about it. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::In a word, complicated. I can't object to disclosure in principle, but I'm not certain what benefits it will bring in practice and worry that it will be misused. Specifically, I can easily see all of the following behaviours happening.
:::*Edits that are disclosed to have had some LLM use just ignored/hatted/reverted/disregarded based on that alone without the content of the edit being even looked at to see whether it is actually good or bad
:::*Editors being harassed because they didn't disclose LLM use in a edit that someone suspects (with or without good reason) was LLM-generated, even if the editor is telling the truth and they didn't use an LLM.
:::*Editors being harassed because they didn't disclose LLM use for an edit, without regard to the content of that edit, based solely on a previous edit being disclosed as LLM-assisted. This will happen even when the editor is telling the truth.
:::*False positives and false negatives due to editors not understanding what "LLM" (or some other term) means and/or not understanding what ''we'' mean by whatever term is used.
:::*Different understandings of what constitutes LLM-usage (is it ''any'' use of an LLM? Only when the exact words in the edit were generated by an LLM and not reviewed? Somewhere in between?) leading to disagreements over whether an edit should or should not be marked as LLM-assisted. Such arguments will detract from the actual content of the edit (in some cases leading to the content being ignored completely).
:::Not every edit will result in one of these types of behaviour, but all of these that do will actively harm the encyclopaedia (not all in the same way), potentially very significantly, and all entirely unnecessarily. If we just accepted that just as some human edits are good and some human edits are bad, some LLM-edits are good and some LLM-edits are bad and that we can and should deal with them appropriately in each case without needing to know or care whether a good (bad) edit is a good (bad) human edit or good (bad) LLM edit or a good LLM-and-human edit. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I've already seen the first three, so the likelihood of those happening is 100%. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the feedback, I definitely feel like there's an opportunity to instruct and not simply penalize or restrict here. I still think the sheer volume of these types of edits are the primary cause for alarm. I don't think anyone here wants to harass other editors, but as with any "rule", there is always the potential for abuse or misunderstanding. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think anyone in this discussion ''intends'' to harass other editors, but (per WAID) experience has already shown that regardless of intent, editors ''are'' being harassed. We should do our utmost to avoid that, and part of that is not instituting policies that stand a high likelihood of (unintentionally) enabling or encouraging harassment while simultaneously providing little to no benefit to the project. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
===Checkbox for disclosure===
:''Note'': I moved the following out of the subsection just above. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this could actually be made in an even simpler way than an edit summary, by adding a checkbox next to the existing "minor edit" one. Wikimedia Commons already has a "this image was made by an artificial intelligence tool" checkbox, and, while the situations aren't directly comparable, most users are not fundamentally dishonest to the point of lying about this. Agree with your point regarding spell-checking errors, although these are, usually, easier to catch (grammar errors, or meaningless words similar in orthography to more relevant ones). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:A checkbox would be great. But even just updating the system messages (the ones that display licensing information) to include a warning and link to the current LLM guidance would be an improvement. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:A checkbox would be amazing. I wonder if this is feasible in MediaWiki. [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 00:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::CE said {{tqq|Wikimedia Commons already has a "this image was made by an artificial intelligence tool" checkbox}}, and Commons runs MediaWiki, so if they can do it, I can't imagine we couldn't do something similar. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 01:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::[[File:Wikimedia Commons Special-UploadWizard 2025-08-28 01-15-32.png|thumb|Wikimedia Commons' [[commons:Special:UploadWizard|Upload Wizard]]]]Here is what it looks like, for reference. What I'm having in mind is a more lightweight checkbox that adds a tag to the edit (or, if it can't be done directly, switching a variable that the edit filter extension can then catch to add the tag). Disclosing the model and prompt might not be as useful, although they could technically be appended to the edit summary with a small dose of Javascript. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Hmm, yeah I think [[Special:Upload]] is a bit more customizable, though everything we see in the interface should be changeable somehow, see [[Special:Allmessages]] (which there's hundreds, maybe thousands, but there's some search functionality if you want to go digging). We could also ask at [[WP:VPT]] since there's plenty of folks who know this stuff under the hood more lurking there. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 01:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::It looks like the dialogue box for "publish changes" has many components, including
:::::*[[MediaWiki:Summary]]
:::::*[[MediaWiki:Minoredit]], which is the bit that goes before the "minor edit" checkbox
:::::and presumably more. There's probably a wrapper too, but I can't find it.
:::::We could maybe modify minoredit, but there's probably a nicer way of doing it. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 02:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Having a checkbox is a very good idea, that I hadn't thought of. Perhaps, that might negate the need to propose a policy. On the other hand, I can think of two potential friction points. One is that an editor who makes bad-quality edits, but consistently checks the checkbox, might complain that there's nothing wrong with their edits because they used the checkbox, so why were their edits reverted? The other is whether or not we need a policy for someone who keeps making bad-quality edits, and ignores the checkbox. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The checkbox wouldn't negate other content policies, so an editor making bad quality edits but using the checkbox wouldn't have any kind of immunity. In my mind, it is similar to the situation at AfC with COI disclosures – editors can and often do make the disclosure in the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard]] , but that doesn't make their submissions immune to other kinds of feedback or criticism. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, I think that gets it right. The checkbox is a technical feature that can and should be pursued independently of the policy-related ideas we are discussing here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It needn't necessarily even be a checkbox. Don't get me wrong, that would be great (but I suspect then ''everyone'' would want a checkbox for things that are, ostensibly, equal to or greater than LLM/AI discloure (like COI, or copyright/plagiarism, or paid editing; the list is long). The other possibility is adding something to the boilerplate text (in replytool the {{tqq|By clicking "Reply", you agree ...}} language; the full interface editor has something similar). Something short, like {{tqq|You agree to abide by our LLM/AI disclosure rules, and that failure to do so may lead to blocks or bans.}} With wikilinks to appropriate pages should disclosure become policy. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Copyright/plagiarism is already banned, and copying with attribution needs the attribution in the edit summary (a simple yes/no check wouldn't work), but COI/paid editing could absolutely also deserve a checkbox. If anything, both that and AI disclosure are more important than the current "minor edit" checkbox, which is often misused and doesn't actually tell much. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh I know they're already restricted, I was just pointing out that if we start down this path, it wouldn't be much to think that we'd end up with 4-5 checkboxes before you know it. And then contributing to Wikipedia would turn into a CAPTCHA-esque triathlon of mouse clicks/screen taps just to submit something. However, a short sentence (with links for further details) about how we require LLM/AI disclosure (assuming Tryp's idea gains community support). As Tryp rightly points out below, however, there is the risk of "banner blindness" if we just add some text and people ignore it completely (the 'ol "officer, I didn't see the speed limit sign"-excuse). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::New editors who see a checkbox that says says "this edit was created with the assistance of an LLM" or otherwise will likely view it as a tacit endorsement by the project of LLM editing. This is in misalignment to current community sentiment. I'd oppose the addition of any such checkbox. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 22:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but then we catch them, revert their edits, and tell them. It's a way for them to alert us of their own will that they're dangerous. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 22:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Perhaps, but I agree with 15224 that we should not use language that will mislead them into thinking that the community accepts this. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think it would ultimately encourage more editors to use LLMs and lead to more LLM-based edits made to the encyclopedia. This is an undesirable outcome. On top of this, editors already have enough problems properly utilizing the minor edits checkbox, and I expect self-snitching compliance with such a checkbox to be extremely low. The harm will well outweigh any theoretical good. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 23:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The best equivalent for {{tq|self-snitching compliance}} is the voluntary COI disclosure at AfC, which a surprisingly large proportion of users have been making. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 23:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|"large proportion"}} – Compared to total AfC users? Sure. Compared to total undisclosed COI editors? I'd say that's unknowable. Based on my limited experience with some UPE farms I'd guess there's more not disclosing than disclosing. And asking for COI self-disclosure carries a lower inherent [[WP:BEANS]] risk than a checkbox for disclosing LLM use. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 23:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It looks to me like nothing about the checkbox idea negates the possible proposal being discussed here, so I think that it's really a separate topic that, if people want to explore it further, should be taken to a talk section of its own. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|I think it would ultimately encourage more editors to use LLMs}}
:::::::::::Honestly, I doubt this. ChatGPT has been around for 2 years and has a great deal of name recognition and regular use. If someone's using an LLM to contribute to Wikipedia, they're probably routinely using AI already and were going to do it anyway. I can't see a situation where someone comes to Wikipedia not intending to use ChatGPT, then changing their mind when they see the checkbox, after they already made the edit.
:::::::::::As far as "self-snitching compliance," you would be surprised at how many people will be open about using AI if you ask politely. (If you ask adversarially, which is what people are doing more often, then they won't.) The risk isn't so much people lying as people not knowing how substantial AI edits can be. A pretty common scenario, for instance, is someone whose first language is not English asking ChatGPT to generate a Wikipedia editing prompt, and then feeding that AI prompt back into ChatGPT or some other AI tool. Even if English is your first language, [https://www.grammarly.com/features AI editing tools advertise a lot of use cases] and it's unclear what the differences are -- usually because it's marketing and the details are deliberately vague. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::My concern is less about making editors aware that LLMs exist and could be used, and more about doing everything we can to not look like their use is endorsed in any form. As said above I think many will see it as tacit endorsement of model use, and take it as permission to go ahead in the future.
::::::::::::I can definitely imagine scenarios where a checkbox would be helpful, but overall I think it would cause more harm. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 20:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::How would you feel then about a checkbox with something along the lines of "this edit was created with the assistance of an LLM, and I attest that I personally verified the accuracy of the generated text"? [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 19:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::We can't say "LLM," people aren't going to know what that is. We have to say "AI," and we probably should also include some examples, like "such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.).
::::::::::Verifying the accuracy is also only half the problem. The other half is [[Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#Language_and_tone|editorializing slop]]. Unfortunately there seems to be a widespread impression, which AI tools are actively encouraging, that adding this stuff is improving writing, instead of both bad writing and [[WP:OR|original "research"]]. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Maybe "I attest that I reviewed our guidelines (link to OR, etc.) and personally verified the accuracy of the generated text"? (but see below) [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Still not gonna cut it, people will just ask the AI to verify the accuracy. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 17:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think it matters what text accompanies it, if the text indicates LLM use is ok in some form so long as a box is checked, that's the association that will be made.
::::::::::A secondary concern is the fact that LLMs have numerous shortcomings that are harmful to the encyclopedia, far too many to cover in a snippet, and a link to more information would go largely unread. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 20:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC
:::::::::::Yeah, those are good points. I'm less and less convinced that we can make a succinct enough checkbox that doesn't convey the "LLMs are a valid way to contribute" impression. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's what I'm coming to think, too. As I've been following this discussion, I think the combination of "banner blindness"/didn't read, along with the misimpression that LLMs are a valid option, are things we won't be able to get around, no matter how we try to frame the checkbox question. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Similar thoughts were expressed in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#Adding LLM edit tag]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 00:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
== Annotated books: Should cite use the editor's name or the original author's name? ==
Does WP have a guideline governing the author that appears in a source such as the following:
* {{Cite book|last=Baring-Gould|first=William|author-link=William S. Baring-Gould|title=The Annotated Sherlock Holmes|publisher=Clarkson N. Potter|___location=New York|year=1967|isbn=0-517-50291-7}}
where the book has an original author (Doyle) and a famous editor/annotator (Baring-Gould)? This particular example (from the [[Sherlock Holmes]] article) seems wrong, since Doyle wrote more than half the words in the book, yet is not even named in the citation.
This must be a common issue: There are scores of books where famous editors add extensive commentary to books written by another famous author (Dante, Dickens, Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Carrol, Twain, etc). In the situation where the editor is famous, and the edited/annotated books becomes famous, people typically refer to the book by the editor's name. Which explains how Doyle's book got attributed to Baring-Gould in the example above.
This is not an academic question, I'm trying to figure out how to display a source [https://archive.org/details/journalsofcaptai0001jcbe/ The Journals Of Captain James Cook] where the book is almost always referred to by the editor's name, not Cook's name.
Is there a guideline that says something like: '' "The named author should be the author of the original work; and the annotator/editor should be described as the editor"''? Or is WP silent on this, and it is handled on a case-by-case basis? I looked in the MOS and could not find anything. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:If you are citing the original author's text, you should be using the original work and not the annotated work. If the original text was only ever published in an annotated form, your text should make it clear whether the material is from the annotations or the original text but the actual book would still be cited to the editor/annotator. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 12:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the suggestion. For the source I'm interested in: '' The Journals Of Captain James Cook'' was never published (author Cook) as a stand-alone work. The first publication was the edited/annotated version (editor was Beaglehole). [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I disagree with Khajida; if your source is a book containing both the original text and some notes, I see no reason to go find a copy of the original text printed all by itself. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I think we have a different conception of what an annotated work is. To me, ''The Annotated Sherlock Holmes'' is not one of Doyle's works. It is a work by Baring-Gould that incorporates very large quotes from Doyle. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 21:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od|1}}I cannot find any support in {{tl|cite book}} for listing both an editor and an author, except in the case of a book where each chapter is written by a different author. In the case where an editor produces an edited version of another author's work, ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', 18th ed., ¶ 14.6, says to give both the editor's name and the author's name, and provides this example (showing both markup an as rendered):
:<nowiki>{{Hanging indent|Bonnefoy, Yves. ''New and Selected Poems''. Edited by John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf. University of Chicago Press, 1995.}}</nowiki>
:
:{{Hanging indent|Bonnefoy, Yves. ''New and Selected Poems''. Edited by John Naughton and Anthony Rudolf. University of Chicago Press, 1995.}}
[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't see anything in [[Template:Cite book]] to suggest that the examples cover all use cases. I would use something like:
::
::*{{Cite book
| title = The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
| first = Arthur Conan
| last = Doyle
| author-link = Arthur Conan Doyle
| contribution = Annotation
| contributor-first = William S.
| contributor-last = Baring-Gould
| contributor-link = William S. Baring-Gould
| publisher = Clarkson N. Potter
| ___location = New York
| year = 1967
| isbn = 0-517-50291-7
}}
::*{{Cite book
| title = The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
| first = Arthur Conan
| last = Doyle
| author-link = Arthur Conan Doyle
| others = Annotated by [[William S. Baring-Gould]]
| publisher = Clarkson N. Potter
| ___location = New York
| year = 1967
| isbn = 0-517-50291-7
}}
::
::using {{para|contribution|Annotation}} and {{para|others|Annotated by [[William S. Baring-Gould]]}} with a wikilink.
:: Is there a way to suppress the quotation marks for {{para|contribution|Annotation}}? -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 13:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Interesting options ... using the "contribution" field could be a good approach. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 13:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: Slightly confused by this discussion, because <nowiki>{{cite book}}</nowiki> does provide an editor field that works fine, although they are listed after the author: {{Cite book
| title = The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
| first = Arthur Conan
| last = Doyle
| author-link = Arthur Conan Doyle
| editor-first1 = William S.
| editor-last1 = Baring-Gould
| editor-link1 = William S. Baring-Gould
| publisher = Clarkson N. Potter
| ___location = New York
| year = 1967
| isbn = 0-517-50291-7
}}. I assume this isn't desirable for some reason, and the use of |others or |contribution is a fine workaround, but when I have editor info this is how I include it. Cheers, [[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]] ([[User talk:Suriname0|talk]]) 15:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I do the same thing as @[[User:Suriname0|Suriname0]]. I've never had a problem with it. The <code>|chapter=</code> parameter can be useful, but the template doesn't require it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== MOS: prescriptive, descriptive, or both? ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1759197670}}
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=A84A0DF}}
The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] varies in [[WP:CONLEVEL|levels of consensus]]. In [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2]] it was alleged for some parts of MOS: {{tq|some of those guidelines have fewer watchers than my talk page, and are largely written by parties to this case}} [[Special:Diff/1307322181|(see discussion)]]. Meanwhile, CONLEVELS states:
{{tqb|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.}}
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that while some parts of MOS are the result of consensus with significant participation, there may be other parts that are indeed {{tq|consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time}}.
Also of note are the [[Special:Diff/1306799581|proposals]] by L235 that did not make principles for that case. Specifically,
{{tqb|Policies and guidelines have a combination of prescriptive and descriptive characteristics. Policies and guidelines document community consensus as to {{tq|"standards [that] all users should normally follow"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), giving them some degree of prescriptive force. Simultaneously, policies and guidelines seek to describe {{tq|"behaviors practiced by most editors"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), and change with community practice, giving them a descriptive quality. Naturally, disagreements regarding the extent of a policy's consensus or prescriptive effect arise from this combination, and the text of a policy can sometimes diverge from or lag behind community consensus. These disagreements, like all disputes on Wikipedia, should be resolved by discussion and consensus.}}
'''Does MOS necessarily indicate community consensus on a wider scale?''' In other words, should closers examine the specific text for level of consensus before using it to overrule a (potentially larger) group of editors? <span style="font-family:Ink Free"> Good day—[[User:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:navy">RetroCosmos</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[WP:MOS]] says at the top "''Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.''" Not sure anything constructive will come of this rfc, but time will tell. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*I would agree with L235, and add that, ideally, policies and guidelines ''describe'' community consensus and ''prescribe'' editors to follow this consensus. Regarding the MoS, as a set of guidelines with various ranges, it is expected that not all of its pages will have the same level of consensus – a very specific topic will attract less interested editors, and thus naturally have a lower CONLEVEL. That in itself is not necessarily problematic. However, if it goes against a wider consensus, or only reflects a subset of the views of editors interested in that topic, then there is indeed a CONLEVEL issue and a broader discussion should be held. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*As a closer, I would not feel justified in going on an independent fact-finding mission to determine the level of consensus that supports a specific policy or guideline. I would support overturning closures that were based on such an independent mission. If participants in the discussion gave valid arguments based on their own analysis of the level of consensus, I would consider that when making my decision.{{pb
}}To put it another way, I presume that guidelines and policies have a higher level of consensus than any local discussion. A mass of editors who disagree with a guideline should be directed toward venues where guideline change can happen, not a local discussion. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*Consensus isn't only found by discussion, but also by use. Maybe four editors discussed a particular piece of policy or guidance, but many editors may follow it because they also support what has been said. If editors disagree with any particular price of guidance then they should start a centralised discussion in whatever forum would be appropriate.<br />So the answer to the specific question is probably, maybe, but to start discussion on specifics as required. Certainly the MOS in it's entirety has some level of wide scale support, even if it's quite possible that not all of it does. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]] is absolutely right. Many long-standing aspects of the MOS have strong consensus not because of the number of editors involved in the original drafting, perhaps decades ago, but because they have been widely followed without significant challenge ever since. It would be quite unworkable for closers to start undertaking historical investigations about the origin of about any particular rule in order to determine how seriously it is to be taken. All MOS rules should generally be followed per [[WP:MOS]], and if a later group of editors think the rule is wrong they always have the option to open a centralised discussion suggesting that it be changed. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*To answer the question {{tqq|'''Does MOS necessarily indicate community consensus on a wider scale?'''}}, I would say the answer is a '''clear yes'''. Closers should not try to deep dive the history of how certain parts of the MOS came to be in determining a local consensus on (for example) an article talk page. Instead, those concerned with MOS should go to the MOS talk page and open a discussion there to enact change. And I would say this for any policy/guideline (including notability guidelines, for example, where I've found discussions were limited to 2-3 people for some changes, but those changes have stood for over a decade). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 19:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
* I think this RFC question would have benefited from some additional workshopping. There are two unrelated questions being asked:
*# Is the MOS prescriptive, descriptive, or both?
*# Does the MOS have consensus?
*#* My answer to the first requires you to know what [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptive]] and [[Linguistic description|descriptive]] mean. The MOS is both, depending upon the level you analyze it at. It is descriptive in the sense that the community wants to follow the rules of good grammar, punctuation, and other elements of writing style that are relevant to an encyclopedia. We follow these; therefore, a style guideline saying to follow these accurately ''describes'' the community's practice. At a more specific level, the MOS is prescriptive: instead of saying 'the community uses good punctuation practices' (descriptive), it says 'the correct punctuation practice to use is this one' (prescriptive).
*#* My answer to the second is that you should assume, unless and until you can prove otherwise, that any page with a {{tl|guideline}} tag at the top is exactly that {{xt|community consensus on a wider scale}} that is mentioned in CONLEVEL. [[User:RetroCosmos|RetroCosmos]], since this was all before your time, let me tell you in very concrete terms what CONLEVEL is actually about: CONLEVEL means that when [[MOS:INFOBOXUSE]] says {{xt|The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article}}, then a handful of editors at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers]] are not allowed to say "Yeah, well, that might be what the official Wikipedia guideline says, but they're prohibited for [[WP:OWN|our]] articles, because we had a private chat among just our little group of editors, and we decided that the official Wikipedia guidelines don't apply to us". Trying to apply the MOS (or any other policy or guideline) = not a CONLEVEL problem. Declaring "your" articles exempt from the MOS = ''possibly'' a CONLEVEL problem. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*This RfC is overly broad. Most of the MOS is supported by strong affirmative consensus. I encourage editors who take issue with a particular part of the MOS to start an RfC asking whether that particular part currently has the support of the community. Such narrow discussions would be far more productive than philosophizing on the nature of the MOS as a whole. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 06:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
*This RfC is not helpful because standard procedure acknowledges that no set of rules can apply in every circumstance. The Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2 Arbcom case concerned extreme disruption over an extended period. That can occur with any policy or guideline. A favorite that pops up from time to time is [[WP:V]] where people go around deleting chunks of correct and well-written material because no one has added citations. WP:V definitely applies everywhere but dumbly pushing it wll result in blocks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
* Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the topic-interested in an MOS discussion might sometimes result in an MOS issue resulting in a local consensus, the solution certainly wouldn't be to defer to a local consensus, which is ''far'' more likely to represent a local consensus. If there are concerns that an MOS consensus was not agreed upon by a sufficiently wide cross-section of editors, then the solution would be to discuss that consensus in a place likely to be seen by a wide cross-section of editors.
:[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 19:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
::Right. All guidelines, including all MOS pages, are presumed to have full community (i.e., non-local) consensus. However, there are hundreds of guidelines with thousands of pieces of advice, and at any given point in time, some small fraction will be out of date, badly explained, not reflective of current community practices, etc. Whenever those problems are identified, editors should fix them. That can be done through [[Wikipedia:PGBOLD|bold editing]], through ordinary discussions on the guideline's talk page, through RFCs, etc. And even if the advice is sound in general, [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|there might be reasons to not apply it in a specific instance]]. But you should not start from a position of assuming the MOS to be a [[WP:LOCALCON]]. It might be wrong, and it might need to be changed, but it's not a local consensus. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know what the status is now, but I remember when the MOS had large parts written by a small group who hung out on the MOS talk pages, fiercely arguing with anyone who came there with an opposing viewpoint to preserve their desired version. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Sounds like Wikipedia. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*As a participant in the arbitration case referenced in the opening, I feel I should point out that the issue there wasn't disagreement with the MOS but disagreement over how a particular section ([[MOS:CAPS]]) is interpreted. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 11:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
*That was a reckless charge during the arb case. If something, in fact, lacked [[WP:CONLEVEL]], then it should have been changed by a larger consensus. The case failed on that point. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 14:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== Charts and colors ==
There have been several changes where [[mw:Extension:graph]] graphs have been migrated to [[mw:Extension:Chart]] graphs. The graph extension is broken, hence the migration. Now, Chart does not allow specific colors, it does not support it. Sometimes, these graphs have legends outside of the graph. I figured it is best to ask before this gets too common. Is it ok to just change the legend to match the chart, or should the graph stay broken? [[User:Snævar|Snævar]] ([[User talk:Snævar|talk]]) 19:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think it's better to fix it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Remove Wikinews reference from [[WP:NOTOPINION]] ==
Given that wikinews is shutting down, plans should be made to remove the reference to wikinews from [[WP:NOTOPINION]]. Even if it does not fully shut down, I think that at this time we cannot in good faith recommend people to go to wikinews. Maybe there are other places wikinews is referenced that should be reconsidered? [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 20:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns4=1&ns12=1&ns126=1&search=%22wikinews%22+-signpost+%22policy%22+-intitle%3A%22archive%22+-intitle%3A%22noticeboard%22+-intitle%3Adesk+-intitle%3A%22for+discussion%22+-intitle%3A%22wikiproject%22+-intitle%3A%22candidates%22+-intitle%3A%22requests%22+-intitle%3A%22main+page%22+-intitle%3A%22deletion%22+-intitle%3A%22articles+for%22+-meetup About 160 search results in projectspace for "Wikinews" and "policy," excluding as many false positives as I could fit in the search.] Not all are relevant but I would guess some are. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 21:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]], who says that Wikinews is shutting down? [[m:Requests for comment/Sister Projects next steps]] is still open. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-07-18/News and notes]] [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 18:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That does not say that Wikinews is shutting down. It says there is a proposal to do so. AFAICT no decision has been made. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ok, does that change the policy impact? To me, with the state of wikinews, "we cannot in good faith recommend people to go to wikinews" as a policy of enWiki. Though I recognize that I might be toosoon with this discussion. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 19:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Until WMF officially retires Wikinews, we shouldn't touch policy, but once we do, there are several policy and guideline pages that direct people to edit at Wikinews that need to be changed; [[WP:NOT]] has several points including NOTNEWS and NOTOPINION [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::You [[Premise|premised]] this proposal on a factually false statement: "Given that wikinews is shutting down". Wikinews is not shutting down. Therefore, anything that depends on this "given" is irrelevant.
::::::Did you instead mean to say something like "I think Wikinews is lousy, so let's remove all mention of it"? If so, then specifically in the context of [[WP:NOTOPINION]], I wonder whether you have contemplated the audience and the alternatives. NOTOPINION tells a person who wants to write an [[opinion piece]] on Wikipedia to go away, because we don't want opinion pieces, and notes at the end that they can take their opinion piece <s>and shove it</s> over to Wikinews, where there is at least a non-zero chance that it would be accepted. We've written this not because we're necessarily supportive of Wikinews, but because telling people "wrong page, try X instead" is usually a more effective way to get rid of them/their unwanted content than "wrong page, no alternatives exist, get your own website". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
== Questions regarding when a 1RR restriction is used ==
Questions have come up at [[Template talk:Protection table#Edit notices in Extended Confirmed Protection]]. The questions are:
* Are there pages with [[WP:1RR|1RR restriction]] that are not extended confirmed protection?
* How to determine what precent of pages with extended confirmed protection have a [[WP:1RR|1RR restriction]] restriction?
If anybody can provide additional insight, please join the conversation at [[Template talk:Protection table#Edit notices in Extended Confirmed Protection]]. [[User:Green Montanan|Green Montanan]] ([[User talk:Green Montanan|talk]]) 18:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
== Can fan-written sources be used to make statements about fandoms? ==
Context for this RFC: [[Talk:Celeste (video game)#Discussion about disputed sentence.|this discussion]].
To summarize the discussion, my sources for including the statement that the semi-official name of Badeline to refer to one of the characters has been embraced by the fan community are fan wikis and discussion forums. The other side claims the sources fail [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. However, since the sources are user-generated, and the users are fans of the game, the fact that they use that name implies that the name has been embraced by the community, hence the question. As a side note, the closer of this discussion is one of the people who commented in it, which fails [[WP:INVOLVED]], but that is a minor issue compared to what I wanted to discuss.[[User:Nononsense101|Nononsense101]] ([[User talk:Nononsense101|talk]]) 04:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, @[[User:Nononsense101|Nononsense101]]. I've pulled the RFC tag, because it was categorized as a request to change a policy or guideline page, but you're asking about adding a few words to a single article. Also, you've got a somewhat confusing question, because "fan-written sources" could mean something like Reddit forums or Wikia Fandom pages, but it could also mean a totally legitimate magazine article that was written by a fan. You probably don't need an RFC on this page, anyway, since it's pretty high traffic, and editors can just answer your question without the extra advertising that an RFC provides.
:As a matter of ideal procedure, [[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] probably shouldn't have written the summary for the discussion on the talk page, but [[Wikipedia:Product, process, policy]] also applies: if his summary was correct, then the fact that he was theoretically the wrong person to write it is not as important. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|the fact that they use that name implies that the name has been embraced by the community}}. This is a premium example of implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source, or [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. In layman's terms, "who says?" --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 06:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
: In answer to the question asked in the header of this section: Yes, [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] allows otherwise-questionable sources to be used to make statements about themselves, and just about any source can be used as a "primary" source for the fact that the source says something. OTOH, you'll find a lot of people around here who'll disagree, because the primary-source paranoia written into policies like [[WP:PSTS]] allows them to say "it's primary so it's bad" instead of having to actually deal with [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]] and so on in discussions.{{pb}}On the other hand, having glanced through the linked discussion, I'd question whether the phrase you want to include passes [[WP:WEIGHT]] (who cares if fans have embraced it?) and whether it can really be supported by types of sources you're asking about ("the fandom" is probably bigger than a few forum posts or one or two wikis, you can't really [[WP:SYNTHESIS|extrapolate]] the whole fandom from that). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:You need independent sources that discuss the fandom adopting these names. Anyone can edit a [[fan wiki]] and discussion forums don't always represent the entire community. It's [[WP:OR|original research]] to rely on those sources directly. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:Please note sources in peer-reviewed journals that I have sourced in that discussion that specifically call out the name "Badeline". That's the quality of sources you need for that. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::The main problem is that even if peer-reviewed journals are used, the claim "the name is embraced by fans" is based solely on the fact the paper uses the name "Badeline" at all. There is no explicit quote in any source, reliable or not, that can back up the claim. [[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 15:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::It sounds like you all are having a problem finding a source that [[WP:Directly supports]] the 'embraced by fans' claim. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::This article [https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/15554120231204148] (available w/ Wikimedia Library Card) definitely gets at the intersection of Celeste and fans, discussed Badeline in depth and her meaning. It does not explicitly state "fans embraced the name Badeline" but it does not question that as the name of the character, and discussed both Madeline (the main character) and Badeline and their connection to trans identity that was readily adopted by fans. It may not be right to say "name embraced by fans" but absolutely "name used by the developer and fans" with this source. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::That makes sense! But I also want to have a general consensus on stuff of this nature, not just this. [[User:Nononsense101|Nononsense101]] ([[User talk:Nononsense101|talk]]) 16:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::The general consensus is that if a statement (e.g., "fans embraced it") is going into a Wikipedia article, then you have to have one or more [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] (e.g., not a user-generated wiki page) that [[Wikipedia:Directly supports]] the content (e.g., says fans embraced/love/cherish/prefer it, not just shows an example of fans using it or [possibly grudgingly] accepting it). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Statements like, "according to Joe Bloggs, fans often use this name" or "the name is commonly used on fanwebsite" with citations to that specific person/website are fine from a verifiability standpoint. Whether the statement is [[WP:DUE]] or not is a different question - it won't always be (possibly most of the time it won't be) but it can only be determined with the full context of the article, statement and source. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's even a problem, unless the person or site is well recognized as authoritative. For example, if we were talking something about Star Wars or Star Trek, then yes, referencing with attribution to [[Wookieepedia]] or [[Memory Alpha]] would make sense, both of those have long-standing reputations (and even here, I'd have reservations on that if no non-fan-based RS picked up on that). But if we're talking about some random website hosted at fandom.com, that would be far different. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Which is the point I made in the final sentence of my comment. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
| |||