Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed 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 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 Help desk or the 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:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after two weeks of inactivity.

Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?

[edit]

Using AI to write your comments in a discussion makes it difficult for others to assume that you are discussing in good faith, rather than trying to use AI to argue someone into exhaustion (see example of someone using AI in their replies "Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people"). More fundamentally, WP:AGF can't apply to the AI itself as AI lacks intentionality, and it is difficult for editors to assess how much of an AI-generated comment reflects the training of the AI vs. the actual thoughts of the editor.

Should WP:DGF be addended to include that using AI to generate your replies in a discussion runs counter to demonstrating good faith? Photos of Japan (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 100% Yes and sooner rather than later. Machine-generated material is not produced in "good faith" — it inherently wastes the time of actual editors. Having to sort through machine-generated responses is unacceptable and a growing problem. Passing off your a machine-generated response as your own, no matter how obvious or not it is, is not acceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have recently had to respond to not one but two different instances of AI-generated slop on our articles and related talk pages (Talk:Herla#AI_Generated_Content & Talk:Böksta_Runestone#Clarification_on_Image_Caption_–_"Possibly_Depicting"_vs._"Showing"). This is a complete waste of my time and the time of any other involved human . I find it outright insulting. We need something done to either stop this or at least reduce and provide consequences for this when it happens. Some kind of disclaimer about not posting AI-generated nonsense to Wikipedia before allowing posting would also help. I did not sign up to Wikipedia around 20 years ago to sort through someone's prompt-generated garbage trained on who knows what (in fact, often trained on Wikipedia itself!). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's only going to become more common, so it's pressingly important that we figure out how to manage it until we have the guidance and the tools to deal with it properly. Technology is moving faster and unless we clarify what the new rules are, people will just assume the WP community is prepared, or worse, take advantage. I believe keeping good faith is part of what makes this place special, and the users are a part of that, but keeping that principal should not come at the cost of driving away everyone that wants to improve the project but aren't sure how to deal with, or identify, bots. Thanks and cheers. DN (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. As with all the other concurrent discussions (how many times do we actually need to discuss the exact same FUD and scaremongering?) the problem is not AI, but rather inappropriate use of AI. What we need to do is to (better) explain what we actually want to see in discussions, not vaguely defined bans of swathes of technology that, used properly, can aid communication. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this topic is discussing using AI to generate replies, as opposed to using it as an aid (e.g. asking it to edit for grammar, or conciseness). As the above concurrent discussion demonstrates, users are already using AI to generate their replies in AfD, so it isn't scaremongering but an actual issue.
WP:DGF also does not ban anything ("Showing good faith is not required"), but offers general advice on demonstrating good faith. So it seems like the most relevant place to include mention of the community's concerns regarding AI-generated comments, without outright banning anything. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as pointed out, multiple times in those discussions, different people understand different things from the phrase "AI-generated". The community's concern is not AI-generated comments, but comments that do not clearly and constructively contribute to a discussion - some such comments are AI-generated, some are not. This proposal would, just as all the other related ones, cause actual harm when editors falsely accuse others of using AI (and this will happen). Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody signed up to argue with bots here. If you're pasting someone else's comment into a prompt and asking the chatbot to argue against that comment and just posting it in here, that's a real problema and absolutely should not be acceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assumption of bad faith and demonstrating one of my points about the harm caused. Nobody is forcing you to engage with bad-faith comments, but whether something is or is not bad faith needs to be determined by its content not by its method of generation. Simply using an AI demonstrates neither good faith nor bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we have any particular to reason to suspect a respected and trustworthy editor of using AI. Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of those people who clarified the difference between AI-generated vs. edited, and such a difference could be made explicit with a note. Editors are already accusing others of using AI. Could you clarify how you think addressing AI in WP:DGF would cause actual harm? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By encouraging editors to accuse others of using AI, by encouraging editors to dismiss or ignore comments because they suspect that they are AI-generated rather than engaging with them. @Bloodofox has already encouraged others to ignore my arguments in this discussion because they suspect I might be using an LLM and/or be a bot (for the record I'm neither). Thryduulf (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think bloodofox's comment was about "you" in the rhetorical sense, not "you" as in Thryduulf. jlwoodwa (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given your relentlessly pro-AI comments here, it seems that you'd be A-OK with just chatting with a group of chatbots here — or leaving the discussion to them. However, most of us clearly are not. In fact, I would immediately tell someone to get lost were it confirmed that indeed that is what is happening. I'm a human being and find the notion of wasting my time with chatbots on Wikipedia to be incredibly insulting and offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, indeed it seems that you have not understood pretty much anything I'm saying. Thryduulf (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you've done nothing here but argue for more generative AI on the site and now you seem to be arguing to let chatbots run rampant on it while mocking anyone who doesn't want to interface with chatbots on Wikipedia. Hey, why not just sell the site to Meta, am I right? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been arguing for more generative AI on the site. I've been arguing against banning it on the grounds that such a ban would be unclear, unenforceable, wouldn't solve any problems (largely because whether something is AI or not is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand) but would instead cause harm. Some of the issues identified are actual problems, but AI is not the cause of them and banning AI won't fix them.
I'm not mocking anybody, nor am I advocating to let chatbots run rampant. I'm utterly confused why you think I might advocate for selling Wikipedia to Meta (or anyone else for that matter)? Are you actually reading anything I'm writing? You clearly are not understanding it. Thryduulf (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we're now in 'everyone else is the problem, not me!' territory now? Perhaps try communicating in a different way because your responses here are looking very much like the typical AI apologetics one can encounter on just about any contemporary LinkedIn thread from your typical FAANG employee. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a everyone else is the problem, not me issue because most other people appear to be able to understand my arguments and respond to them appropriately. Not everybody agrees with them, but that's not an issue.
I'm not familiar with Linkedin threads (I don't use that platform) nor what a "FAANG employee" is (I've literally never heard the term before now) so I have no idea whether your characterisation is a compliment or a personal attack, but given your comments towards me and others you disagree with elsewhere I suspect it's closer to the latter.
AI is a tool. Just like any other tool it can be used in good faith or in bad faith, it can be used well and it can be used badly, it can be used in appropriate situations and it can be used in inappropriate situations, the results of using the tool can be good and the results of using the tool can be bad. Banning the tool inevitably bans the good results as well as the bad results but doesn't address the reasons why the results were good or bad and so does not resolve the actual issue that led to the bad outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of generating comments to other users though, AI is much easier to use for bad faith than for good faith. LLMs don't understand Wikipedia's policies and norms, and so are hard to utilize to generate posts that productively address them. By contrast, bad actors can easily use LLMs to make low quality posts to waste people's time or wear them down.
In the context of generating images, or text for articles, it's easy to see how the vast majority of users using AI for those purposes is acting in good faith as these are generally constructive tasks, and most people making bad faith changes to articles are either obvious vandals who won't bother to use AI because they'll be reverted soon anyways, or trying to be subtle (povpushers) in which case they tend to want to carefully write their own text into the article.
It's true that AI "is just a tool", but when that tool is much easier to use for bad faith purposes (in the context of discussions) then it raises suspicions about why people are using it. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLMs don't understand Wikipedia's policies and norms They're not designed to "understand" them since the policies and norms were designed for human cognition. The fact that AI is used rampantly by people acting in bad faith on Wikipedia does not inherently condemn the AI. To me, it shows that it's too easy for vandals to access and do damage on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the type of vetting required to prevent that at the source would also potentially require eliminating IP-editing, which won't happen. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned "FUD". That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts: pro-AI propagadizing and persuading people who hold memecoin crypto to continue holding it. Since this discussion is not about memecoin crypto that would suggest you are using it in a pro-AI context. I will note, fear, uncertainty and doubt is not my problem with AI. Rather it's anger, aesthetic disgust and feeling disrespected when somebody makes me talk to their chatbot. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts is simply
FUD both predates AI by many decades (my father introduced me to the term in the context of the phrase "nobody got fired for buying IBM", and the context of that was mainframe computer systems in the 1980s if not earlier. FUD is also used in many, many more contexts that just those two you list, including examples by those opposing the use of AI on Wikipedia in these very discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts is factually incorrect.
FUD both predates AI by many decades (indeed if you'd bothered to read the fear, uncertainty and doubt article you'd learn that the concept was first recorded in 1693, the exact formulation dates from at least the 1920s and the use of it in technology concepts originated in 1975 in the context of mainframe computer systems. That its use, eve in just AI contexts, is limited to pro-AI advocacy is ludicrous (even ignoring things like Roko's basilisk), examples can be found in these sprawling discussions from those opposing AI use on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really – I agree with Thryduulf's arguments on this one. Using AI to help tweak or summarize or "enhance" replies is of course not bad faith – the person is trying hard. Maybe English is their second language. Even for replies 100% AI-generated the user may be an ESL speaker struggling to remember the right words (I always forget 90% of my French vocabulary when writing anything in French, for example). In this case, I don't think we should make a blanket assumption that using AI to generate comments is not showing good faith. Cremastra (u — c) 02:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes because generating walls of text is not good faith. People "touching up" their comments is also bad (for starters, if you lack the English competency to write your statements in the first place, you probably lack the competency to tell if your meaning has been preserved or not). Exactly what AGF should say needs work, but something needs to be said, and AGFDGF is a good place to do it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all walls of text are generated by AI, not all AI generated comments are walls of text. Not everybody who uses AI to touch up their comments lacks the competencies you describe, not everybody who does lack those competencies uses AI. It is not always possible to tell which comments have been generated by AI and which have not. This proposal is not particularly relevant to the problems you describe. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to ask: Are you generating all of these pro-AI arguments using ChatGPT? It'd explain a lot. If so, I'll happily ignore any and all of your contributions, and I'd advise anyone else to do the same. We're not here to be flooded with LLM-derived responses. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you can't tell whether my comments are AI-generated or not is one of the fundamental problems with these proposals. For the record they aren't, nor are they pro-AI - they're simply anti throwing out babies with bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it also illustrates the serious danger: We can no longer be sure that we're even talking to other people here, which is probably the most notable shift in the history of Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a "serious danger"? If a comment makes a good point, why does it matter whether ti was AI generated or not? If it doesn't make a good point, why does it matter if it was AI generated or not? How will these proposals resolve that "danger"? How will they be enforceable? Thryduulf (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is made for people, by people, and I like most people will be incredibly offended to find that we're just playing some kind of LLM pong with a chatbot of your choice. You can't be serious. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to that philosophy, but that doesn't actually answer any of my questions. Thryduulf (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"why does it matter if it was AI generated or not?"
Because it takes little effort to post a lengthy, low quality AI-generated post, and a lot of effort for human editors to write up replies debunking them.
"How will they be enforceable? "
WP:DGF isn't meant to be enforced. It's meant to explain to people how they can demonstrate good faith. Posting replies to people (who took the time to write them) that are obviously AI-generated harms the ability of those people to assume good faith. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "example of someone using AI in their replies" appears – to me – to be a non-AI-generated comment. I think I preferred the allegedly AI-generated comments from that user (example). The AI was at least superficially polite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the person screaming in all caps that they use AI because they don't want to waste their time arguing is not using AI for that comment. Their first post calls for the article to be deleted for not "offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding" and "merely" reiterating what other sources have written.
Yes, after a human had wasted their time explaining all the things wrong with its first post, then the bot was able to write a second post which looks ok. Except it only superficially looks ok, it doesn't actually accurately describe the articles. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple humans have demonstrated in these discussions that humans are equally capable of writing posts which superficially look OK but don't actually accurately relate to anything they are responding to. Thryduulf (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I can assume that everyone here is acting in good faith. I can't assume good faith in the globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions with low effort posts, whose bot is just saying whatever it can to argue for the deletion of political pages the editor doesn't like. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think that has more to do with the "globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions" part than with the "some of it might be [AI-generated]" part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which was discovered because of my suspicions from their inhuman, and meaningless replies. "Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is," maybe sounds pithy in a vacuum, but this was written in reply to me stating that we aren't supposed to be doing OR but reiterating what the sources say.
"Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay" also sounds good, until you realize that the bot is actually criticizing its own original post.
The fact that my suspicions about their good faith were ultimately validated only makes it even harder for me to assume good faith in users who sound like ChatGPT. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we need some other language here. I can understand feeling like this is a bad interaction. There's no sense that the person cares; there's no feeling like this is a true interaction. A contract lawyer would say that there's no meeting of the minds, and there can't be, because there's no mind in the AI, and the human copying from the AI doesn't seem to be interested in engaging their brain.
But... do you actually think they're doing this for the purpose of intentionally harming Wikipedia? Or could this be explained by other motivations? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity – or to anxiety, insecurity (will they hate me if I get my grammar wrong?), incompetence, negligence, or any number of other "understandable" (but still something WP:SHUN- and even block-worthy) reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user's talk page has a header at the top asking people not to template them because it is "impersonal and disrespectful", instead requesting "please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words"
Does this look like acting in good faith to you? Requesting other people write personalized responses to them while they respond with an LLM? Because it looks to me like they are trying to waste other people's time. Photos of Japan (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Assume good faith means that you assume people aren't deliberately screwing up on purpose. Humans are self-contradictory creatures. I generally do assume that someone who is being hypocritical hasn't noticed their contradictions yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Being hypocritical" in the abstract isn't the problem, it's the fact that asking people to put effort into their comments, while putting in minimal effort into your own comments appears bad faith, especially when said person says they don't want to waste time writing comments to stupid people. The fact you are arguing AGF for this person is both astounding and disappointing. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like there is a lack of reciprocity in the interaction, even leaving aside the concern that the account is a block-evading sock.
But I wonder if you have read AGF recently. The first sentence is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
So we've got some of this (e.g., harmful actions). But do you really believe this person woke up in the morning and decided "My main goal for today is to deliberately hurt Wikipedia. I might not be successful, but I sure am going to try hard to reach my goal"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to hurt Wikipedia doesn't mean they have to literally think "I am trying to hurt Wikipedia", it can mean a range of things, such as "I am trying to troll Wikipedians". A person who thinks a cabal of editors is guarding an article page, and that they need to harass them off the site, may think they are improving Wikipedia, but at the least I wouldn't say that they are acting in good faith. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd count that as a case of "trying to hurt Wikipedia-the-community". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues with AI in discussions is not related to good faith, which is narrowly defined to intent. CMD (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my mind, they are related inasmuch as it is much more difficult for me to ascertain good faith if the words are eminently not written by the person I am speaking to in large part, but instead generated based on an unknown prompt in what is likely a small fraction of the expected time. To be frank, in many situations it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the disparity in effort is being leveraged in something less than good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith, don't ascertain! Llm use can be deeply unhelpful for discussions and the potential for mis-use is large, but the most recent discussion I've been involved with where I observed an llm post was responded to by an llm post, I believe both the users were doing this in good faith. CMD (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I mean to say is it should be licit that unhelpful LLM use should be something that can be mentioned like any other unhelpful rhetorical pattern. Remsense ‥ 论 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but WP:DGF doesn't mention any unhelpful rhetorical patterns. CMD (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that everyone (myself included) defending "LLM use" says "use" rather than "generated", is a pretty clear sign that no one really wants to communicate with someone using "LLM generated" comments. We can argue about bans (not being proposed here), how to know if someone is using LLM, the nuances of "LLM use", etc., but at the very least we should be able to agree that there are concerns with LLM generated replies, and if we can agree that there are concerns then we should be able to agree that somewhere in policy we should be able to find a place to express those concerns. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or they could be saying "use" because "using LLMs" is shorter and more colloquial than "generating text with LLMs"? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unlikely when people justify their use for editing (which I also support), and not for generating replies on their behalf. Photos of Japan (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just semantics.
    For instance, I am OK with someone using a LLM to post a productive comment on a talk page. I am also OK with someone generating a reply with a LLM that is a productive comment to post to a talk page. I am not OK with someone generating text with an LLM to include in an article, and also not OK with someone using a LLM to contribute to an article.
    The only difference between these four sentences is that two of them are more annoying to type than the other two. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people already assume good faith in those making productive contributions. In situations where good faith is more difficult to assume, would you trust someone who uses an LLM to generate all of their comments as much as someone who doesn't? Photos of Japan (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that LLM-use is completely irrelevant to the faith in which a user contributes, yes. Of course what amount that actually is may be anywhere between completely and none. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLM-use is relevant as it allows bad faith users to disrupt the encyclopedia with minimal effort. Such a user posted in this thread earlier, as well as started a disruptive thread here and posted here, all using AI. I had previously been involved in a debate with another sock puppet of theirs, but at that time they didn't use AI. Now it seems they are switching to using an LLM just to troll with minimal effort. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs are a tool that can be used by good and bad faith users alike. Using an LLM tells you nothing about whether a user is contributing in good or bad faith. If somebody is trolling they can be, and should be, blocked for trolling regardless of the specifics of how they are trolling. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A can of spray paint, a kitchen knife, etc., are tools that can be used for good or bad, but if you bring them some place where they have few good uses and many bad uses then people will be suspicious about why you brought them. You can't just assume that a tool in any context is equally harmless. Using AI to generate replies to other editors is more suspicious than using it to generate a picture exemplifying a fashion style, or a description of a physics concept. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No -- whatever you think of LLMs, the reason they are so popular is that the people who use them earnestly believe they are useful. Claiming otherwise is divorced from reality. Even people who add hallucinated bullshit to articles are usually well-intentioned (if wrong). Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's rarely productive to get mad at someone on Wikipedia for any reason, but if someone uses an LLM and it screws up their comment they don't get any pass just because the LLM screwed up and not them. You are fully responsible for any LLM content you sign your name under. -- LWG talk 05:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. When someone publishes something under their own name, they are incorporating it as their own statement. Plagiarism from an AI or elsewhere is irrelevant to whether they are engaging in good faith. lethargilistic (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LLMs know a few tricks about logical fallacies and some general ways of arguing (rhetoric), but they are incredibly dumb at understanding the rules of Wikipedia. You can usually tell this because it looks like incredibly slick and professional prose, but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would indef such users for lacking WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline states "Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR isn't a guideline, but an essay. Relevantly though it is being cited at this very moment in an ANI thread concerning a user who can't/won't communicate without an LLM. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked that user as NOTHERE a few minutes ago after seeing them (using ChatGPT) make suggestions for text to live pagespace while their previous bad behaviors were under discussion. AGF is not a suicide pact. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia: That problem existed with some humans even prior to LLMs. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Not a good or bad faith issue. PackMecEng (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Using a 3rd party service to contribute to the Wikipedia on your behalf is clearly bad-faith, analogous to paying someone to write your article. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a stretch to say that a newbie writing a comment using AI is automatically acting in bad faith and not here to build an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but this and other comments here show that not a few editors perceive it as bad-faith, rude, etc. I take that as an indication that we should tell people to avoid doing this when they have enough CLUE to read WP:AGF and are making an effort to show they're acting in good faith. Daß Wölf 23:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Large language model AI like Chat GPT are in their infancy. The culture hasn't finished its initial reaction to them yet. I suggest that any proposal made here have an automatic expiration/required rediscussion date two years after closing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – It is a matter of how you use AI. I use Google translate to add trans-title parameters to citations, but I am careful to check for Google's output making for good English as well as reflecting the foreign title when it is a language I somewhat understand. I like to think that I am careful, and I do not pretend to be fluent in a language I am not familiar with, although I usually don't announce the source of such a translation. If an editor uses AI profligately and without understanding the material generated, then that is the sin; not AI itself. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a legal phrase, "when the exception swallows the rule", and I think we might be headed there with the recent LLM/AI discussions.
    We start off by saying "Let's completely ban it!" Then in discussion we add "Oh, except for this very reasonable thing... and that reasonable thing... and nobody actually meant this other reasonable thing..."
    The end result is that it's "completely banned" ...except for an apparent majority of uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want us to reply to you, because you are a human? Or are you just posting the output of an LLM without bothering to read anything yourself? DS (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely you would reply because someone posted a valid comment and you are assuming they are acting in good faith and taking responsibility for what they post. To assume otherwise is kind of weird and not inline with general Wikipedia values. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The OP seems to misunderstand WP:DGF which is not aimed at weak editors but instead exhorts stronger editors to lead by example. That section already seems to overload the primary point of WP:AGF and adding mention of AI would be quite inappropriate per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Reading the current text of the section, adding text about AI would feel out-of-place for what the section is about. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not about good faith. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. AI use is not a demonstration of bad faith (in any case not every new good-faith editor is familiar with our AI policies), but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith", which is what the WP:DGF section is about.
It seems some editors are missing the point and !voting as if every edit is either a demonstration of good faith or bad faith. Most interactions are neutral and so is most AI use, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where AI use would point away from unfamiliarity and incompetence (in the CIR sense), and it often (unintentionally) leads to a presumption of laziness and open disinterest. It makes perfect sense to recommend against it. Daß Wölf 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed most kinds of actions don't inherently demonstrate good or bad. The circumspect and neutral observation that AI use is not a demonstration of bad faith... but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith", does not justify a proposal to one-sidedly say just half. And among all the actions that don't necessarily demonstrate good faith (and don't necessarily demonstrate bad faith either), it is not the purpose of "demonstrate good faith" and the broader guideline, to single out one kind of action to especially mention negatively. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Per Dass Wolf, though I would say passing off a completely AI-generated comment as your own anywhere is inherently bad-faith and one doesn't need to know Wiki policies to understand that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Sure, LLMs may have utility somewhere, and it might be a crutch for people unfamiliar with English, but as I've said above in the other AI RfC, that's a competence issue. This is about comments eating up editor time, energy, about LLMs easily being used to ram through changes and poke at editors in good standing. I don't see a case wherein a prospective editor's command of policy and language is good enough to discuss with other editors while being bad enough to require LLM use. Iseult Δx talk to me 01:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith is separate from competence. Trying to do good is separate from having skills and knowledge to achieve good results. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - anyone using a washing machine to wash their clothes must be evil and inherently lazy. They cannot be trusted. ... Oh, sorry, wrong century. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a washing machine still results in washed clothes. Using LLMs results in communication failures because the LLM-using party isn't fully engaging. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And before there's a reply of 'the washing machine-using party isn't fully engaging in washing clothes'—washing clothes is a material process. The clothes get washed whether or not you pay attention to the suds and water. Communication is a social process. Users can't come to a meeting of the minds if some of the users outsource the 'thinking' to word salad-generators that can't think. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - As long as a person understands (and knows) what they are talking about, we shouldn't discriminate against folks using generative AI tech for grammar fixes or minor flow improvements. Yes, AI can create walls of text, and make arguments not grounded in policy, but we could do that even without resorting to generative AI. Sohom (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my point above. Completely AI generated comments (or articles) are obviously bad, but using AI should be thrown into the same cross-hairs as completely AI generated comments. Sohom (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta You mean shouldn't be thrown? I think that would make more sense given the context of your original !vote. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Don't make any changes. It's not a good faith/bad faith issue. The 'yes' arguments are most unconvincing with very bizarre analogies to make their point. Here, I can make one too: "Don't edit with AI; you wouldn't shoot your neighbor's dog with a BB-gun, would you?" Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If I plug another user's comments into an LLM and ask it to generate a response, I am not participating in the project in good faith. By failing to meaningfully engage with the other user by reading their comments and making an effort to articulate myself, I'm treating the other user's time and energy frivolously. We should advise users that refraining from using LLMs is an important step toward demonstrating good faith. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Hydrangeans among others. Good faith editing requires engaging collaboratively with your human faculties. Posting an AI comment, on the other hand, strikes me as deeply unfair to those of us who try to engage substantively when there is disagreement. Let's not forget that editor time and energy and enthusiasm are our most important resources. If AI is not meaningfully contributing to our discussions (and I think there is good reason to believe it is not) then it is wasting these limited resources. I would therefore argue that using it is full-on WP:DISRUPTIVE if done persistently enough –– on par with e.g. WP:IDHT or WP:POINT –– but at the very least demonstrates an unwillingness to display good faith engagement. That should be codified in the guideline. Generalrelative (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your concern about the use of AI in discussions. It is important to be mindful of how AI is used, and to ensure that it is used in a way that is respectful of others.

I don't think that WP:DGF should be amended to specifically mention AI. However, I do think that it is important to be aware of the potential for AI to be used in a way that is not in good faith. When using AI, it is important to be transparent about it. Let others know that you are using AI, and explain how you are using it. This will help to build trust and ensure that others understand that you are not trying to deceive them. It is also important to be mindful of the limitations of AI. AI is not a perfect tool, and it can sometimes generate biased or inaccurate results. Be sure to review and edit any AI-generated content before you post it.

Finally, it is important to remember that AI is just a tool. It is up to you to use it in a way that is respectful and ethical. |} It's easy to detect for most, can be pointed out as needed. No need to add an extra policy JayCubby

  • Questions: While I would agree that AI may be used as a tool for good, such leveling the field for those with certain disabilities, might it just as easily be used as a tool for disruption? What evidence exists that shows whether or not AI may be used to circumvent certain processes and requirements that make Wiki a positive collaboration of new ideas as opposed to a toxic competition of trite but effective logical fallacies? Cheers. DN (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AI can be used to engage positively, it can also be used to engage negatively. Simply using AI is therefore not, in and of itself, an indication of good or bad faith. Anyone using AI to circumvent processes and requirements should be dealt with in the exact same way they would be if they circumvented those processes and requirements using any other means. Users who are not circumventing processes and requirements should not be sanctioned or discriminated against for circumventing processes and requirements. Using a tool that others could theoretically use to cause harm or engage in bad faith does not mean that they are causing harm or engaging in bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Thanks. DN (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Hydrangeans explains above, an auto-answer tool means that the person is not engaging with the discussion. They either cannot or will not think about what others have written, and they are unable or unwilling to reply themselves. I can chat to an app if I want to spend time talking to a chatbot. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I and others have repeatedly explained, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You can use AI in multiple different ways, some of which are productive contributions to Wikipedia, some of which are not. If someone is disruptively not engaging with discussion then they can already be sanctioned for doing so, what tools they are or are not using to do so could not be less relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This implies a discussion that is entirely between AI chatbots deserves the same attention and thought needed to close it, and can effect a consensus just as well, as one between humans, so long as its arguments are superficially reasonable and not disruptive. It implies that editors should expect and be comfortable with arguing with AI when they enter a discussion, and that they should not expect to engage with anyone who can actually comprehend them... JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a straw man argument, and if you've been following the discussion you should already know that. My comment implied absolutely none of what you claim it does. If you are not prepared to discuss what has actually been written then I am not going to waste more of my time replying to you in detail. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a strawman; it's an example that demonstrates, acutely, the flaws in your premise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that demonstrates a flaw in the premise then you haven't understood the premise at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. If you think it doesn't demonstrate a flaw, then you haven't understood the implications of your own position or the purpose of discussion on Wikipedia talk pages. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to waste any more of my time on you. Thryduulf (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the above users are correct. If we have to treat AI-generated posts in good faith the same as human posts, then a conversation of posts between users that is entirely generated by AI would have to be read by a closing admin and their consensus respected provided it didn't overtly defy policy. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You too have completely misunderstood. If someone is contributing in good faith, we treat their comments as having been left in good faith regardless of how they made them. If someone is contributing in bad faith we treat their comments as having been left in bad faith regardless of how they made them. Simply using AI is not an indication of whether someone is contributing in good or bad faith (it could be either). Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But we can't tell if the bot is acting in good or bad faith, because the bot lacks agency, which is the problem with comments that are generated by AI rather than merely assisted by AI. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But we can't tell if the bot is acting in good or bad faith, because the bot lacks agency exactly. It is the operator who acts in good or bad faith, and simply using a bot is not evidence of good faith or bad faith. What determines good or bad faith is the content not the method. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the if the bot operator isn't generating their own comments, then their faith doesn't matter, the bot's does. Just like how if I hired someone to edit Wikipedia to me, what would matter is their faith. Photos of Japan (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot and AI can both be used in good faith and in bad faith. You can only tell which by looking at the contributions in their context, which is exactly the same as contributions made without the use of either. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to go off topic, but do you object to any requirements on users for disclosure of use of AI generated responses and comments etc...? DN (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in favour of completely unenforceable requirements that would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a demonstration of good faith to copy someone else's (let's say public domain and relevant) argument wholesale and paste it in a discussion with no attribution as if it was your original thoughts?
    Or how about passing off a novel mathematical proof generated by AI as if you wrote it by yourself? JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific examples of good or bad faith contributions are not relevant to this discussion. If you do not understand why this is then you haven't understood the basic premise of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If other actions where someone is deceptively appropriating, word-for-word, an entire argument they did not write, are intuitively "not good faith", then why would it be any different in this scenario? JoelleJay (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is explicitly about whether use of AI should be regarded as an indicator of bad faith. Someone deceptively appropriating, word-for-word, an entire argument they did not write is not editing in good faith. It is completely irrelevant whether they do this using AI or not. Nobody is arguing that some uses of AI are bad faith - specific examples are neither relevant nor useful. For simply using AI to be regarded as an indicator of bad faith then all uses of AI must be in bad faith, which they are not (as multiple people have repeatedly explained).
    Everybody agrees that some people who edit using mobile phones do so in bad faith, but we don't regard simply using a mobile phone as evidence of editing in bad faith because some people who edit using mobile phones do so in good faith. Listing specific examples of bad faith use of mobile phones is completely irrelevant to a discussion about that. Replace "mobile phones" with "AI" and absolutely nothing changes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the mobile phone user is actually doing the writing. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I must be sounding like a stuck record at this point, but there are only so many ways you can describe completely irrelevant things as completely irrelevant before that happens. The AI system is incapable of having faith, good or bad, in the same way that a mobile phone is incapable of having faith, good or bad. The faith comes from the person using the tool not from the tool itself. That faith can be either good or bad, but the tool someone uses does not and cannot tell you anything about that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a really good summary of the situation. Using a widely available and powerful tool does not mean you are acting in bad faith, it is all in how it is used. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A tool merely being widely available and powerful doesn't mean it's suited to the purpose of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. By way of analogy, Infowars is/was widely available and powerful, in the sense of the exercise it influenced over certain Internet audiences, but its very character as a disinformation platform makes it unsuitable for citation on Wikipedia. LLMs are widely available and might be considered 'powerful' in the sense that they can manage a raw output of vaguely plausible-sounding text, but their very character as text prediction models—rather than actual, deliberated communication—make them unsuitable mechanisms for participating in Wikipedia discussions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we assume your premise is true, that does not indicate that someone using an LLM (which come in a wide range of abilities and are only a subset of AI) is contributing in either good or bad faith. It is completely irrelevant to the faith in which they are contributing. Thryduulf (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this isn’t about if you think its a useful tool or not. This is about if someone uses one are they automatically acting in bad faith. We can argue the merits and benefits of AI all day, and they certainly have their place, but nothing you said struck at the point of this discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. To echo someone here, no one signed up here to argue with bad AI chat bots. If you're a non native speaker running through your posts through ChatGPT for spelling and grammar that's one thing, but wasting time bickering with AI slop is an insult. Hydronym89 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment provides good examples of using AI in good and bad faith, thus demonstrating that simply using AI is not an indication of either. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an fair comparison? I disagree that it is. Spelling and grammar checking doesn't seem to be what we are talking about.
The importance of context in which it is being used is, I think, the part that may be perceived as falling through the cracks in relation to AGF or DGF, but I agree there is a legitimate concern for AI being used to game the system in achieving goals that are inconsistent with being WP:HERE.
I think we all agree that time is a valuable commodity that should be respected, but not at the expense of others. Using a bot to fix grammar and punctuation is acceptable because it typically saves more time than it costs. Using AI to enable endless debates, even if both opponents are using it, seems like an awful waste of space, let alone the time it would cost admins that need to sort through it all. DN (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging in endless debates that waste the time of other editors is disruptive, but this is completely irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons. Firstly, someone engaging in this behaviour may be doing so in either good or bad faith: someone intentionally doing so is almost certainly WP:NOTHERE, and we regularly deal with such people. Other people sincerely believe that their arguments are improving Wikipedia and/or that the people they are arguing with are trying to harm it. This doesn't make it less disruptive but equally doesn't mean they are contributing in bad faith.
Secondly this behaviour is completely independent of whether someone is using AI or not: some people engaging in this behaviour are using AI some people engaging in this behaviour are not. Some people who use AI engage in this behaviour, some people are not.
For the perfect illustration of this see the people in this discussion who are making extensive arguments in good faith, without using AI, while having not understood the premise of the discussion - despite this being explained to them multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that using something like grammar and spellcheck is not the same as using AI (without informing other users) to produce comments and responses? DN (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are different uses of AI, but that's not relevant because neither use is, in and of itself, evidence of the faith in which the user is contributing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating "evidence" with "proof". Using AI to entirely generate your comments is not "proof" of bad faith, but it definitely provides less "evidence" of good faith than writing out a comment yourself. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it provides no evidence of good or bad faith at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the absence of AI's ability to demonstrate good/bad faith absolve the user of responsibility to some degree in that regard? DN (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking, but you are always responsible for everything you post, regardless of how on why you posted it or what tools you did or did not use to write it. This means that someone using AI (in any form) to write a post should be treated and responded to identically with how they should be treated and responded to if they had made an identical post without using AI. Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:CREEP. After reading the current version of the section, it doesn't seem like the right place to say anything about AI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with caveats this discussion seems to be spiraling into a discussion of several separate issues. I agree with Remsense and Simonm223 and others that using an LLM to generate your reply to a discussion is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs on consensus, which requires communication between humans to arrive at a shared understanding. Putting in the effort to fully understand and respond to the other parties is an essential part of good-faith engagement in the consensus process. If I hired a human ghost writer to use my Wiki account to argue for my desired changes on a wiki article, that would be completely inappropriate, and using an AI to replace that hypothetical ghost writer doesn't make it any more acceptable. With that said, I understand this discussion to be about how to encourage editors to demonstrate good faith. Many of the people here on both sides seem to think we are discussing banning or encouraging LLM use, which is a different conversation. In the context of this discussion demonstrating good faith means disclosing LLM use and never using LLMs to generate replies to any contentious discussion. This is a subset of "articulating your honest motives" (since we can't trust the AI to accurately convey your motives behind your advocacy) and "avoidance of gaming the system" (since using an LLM in a contentious discussion opens up the concern that you might simply be using minimal effort to waste the time of those who disagree with you and win by exhaustion). I think it is appropriate to mention the pitfalls of LLM use in WP:DGF, though I do not at this time support an outright ban on its use. -- LWG talk 05:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. For the same reason I oppose blanket statements about bans of using AI elsewhere, it is not only a huge over reach but fundamentally impossible to enforce. I've seen a lot of talk around testing student work to see if it AI, but that is impossible to do reliably. When movable type and the printing press began replacing scribes, the handwriting of scribes began to look like that of a printing press. As AI becomes more prominent, I imagine human writing will begin to look more AI generated. People who use AI for things like helping them translate their native writing into English should not be punished if something leaks through that makes the use obvious. Like anywhere else on the Internet, I foresee any strict rules against the use of AI to quickly be used in bad faith in heated arguments to accuse others of being a bot.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitantly support. I agree that generative AI and LLMs cause a lot of problems on Wikipedia, and should not be allowed. However, I think that a blanket ban could have a negative impact on both accessibility and the community as a whole. Some people might be using LLMs to help with grammar or spelling, and I'd consider it a net positive because it encourages people with english as a second language to edit wikipedia, which brings diverse perspectives we wouldn't otherwise have. The other issue is that it might encourage people to go on "AI Witch hunts" for lack of a better term. Nobody likes being accused of being an LLM and it negatively impacts the sense of community we have. If there is also a policy against accusing people of using an LLM without evidence, I would likely agree without any issue Mgjertson (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a policy against accusing people of using an LLM without evidence: WP:AGF. I don't think we should ban the use of LLMs, but because using an LLM to write your comments can make it harder for others to AGF, LLMs should be used with caution and their use should be disclosed. LLMs should never be used to gain the upper hand in a contentious discussion. -- LWG talk 21:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LWG We do have a policy against accusing people of using an LLM without evidence: WP:AGF this proposal would effectively remove that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only "evidence" required at the moment is "my personal belief". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[tangent] If any of the people who have used LLMs/AI tools would be willing to do me a favor, please see the request at Wikipedia talk:Large language models#For an LLM tester. I think this (splitting a very long page – not an article – by date) is something that will be faster and more accurately done by a script than by a human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. The purpose of a discussion forum is for editors to engage with each other; fully AI-generated responses serve no purpose but to flood the zone and waste people's time, meaning they are, by definition, bad faith. Obviously this does not apply to light editing, but that's not what we're actually discussing; this is about fully AI-generated material, not about people using it grammar an spellchecking software to clean up their own words. No one has come up with even the slightest rationale for why anyone would do so in good faith - all they've provided is vague "but it might be useful to someone somewhere, hypothetically" - which is, in fact, false, as their total inability to articulate any such case shows. And the fact that some people are determine to defend it regardless shows why we do in fact need a specific policy making clear that it is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - AI is simply a tool, whether it's to spellcheck or fully generate a comment. Labeling all AI use as bad faith editing is assuming bad faith. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes unless the user makes it innately clear they are using AI to interact with other editors, per DGF, at least until new policies and guidelines for protecting our human community are in place. Wikipedia's core principals were originally designed around aspects of human nature, experiences and interactions. It was designed for people to collaborate with other people, at a time before AI was so readily available. In it's current state, I don't see any comments explaining how Wikipedia is prepared to handle this tool that likely hasn't realized it's full potential yet. I might agree that whether or not a person chooses to use AI isn't an initial sign of good or bad faith, but that is irrelevant to the core issue of the question as it relates to Wiki's current ability interpret and manage a potentially subversive tool.The sooner the better, before it's use, for better or worse, sways the community's appetite one way or the other. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - A carefully curated and reviewed-by-the-poster AI generated statement is not a problem. The AI is being used as a tool to organize thoughts, and just because the exact wording came from an AI does not mean it does not contribute usefully to the discussion. The issue is not the use of the AI, the issue is in non-useful content or discussion, which, yes, can easily happen if the AI statement is not carefully curated and reviewed by the poster. But that's not the fault of the AI, that's the fault of the human operating the AI... and nothing has changed from our normal policy. This reply is not written by AI, but if it had been, it wouldn't have changed the points raised as relevant. And if irrelevant statements are made... heck, humans do that all the time too! Said comments should be dealt with the same way we deal with humans who spout nonsense. Fieari (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Outside of a few editors here I feel like most of the responses on both sides are missing what WP:DGF is about. First off, it is a postive rule about what editors should do. It is also a short rule. Expanding on this is unlikely to improve the rule. Additionally, beginning to talk about things an editor should not do because they imply a departure from godo faith opens the door to many other things that are not the best editing but are also not really what DGF is about. WP needs better guidleines on AI but this guideline does not need to be modified to encompass AI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Wikipedia was designed for humans. Until our structures are changed to accomodate AI, there needs to be reasonable safety measures to prevent abuse of a system that was designed for humans only. AI can impact every area of Wikipedia with great potential for distortion and abuse. This proposal is reasonable and needed. -- GreenC 19:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but possibly with included clarification on the distinction between AI generated replies and the use of AI as a tool for spellcheck or translation. But someone who just asks an AI to spit out a list of talking points/generate an entire argument to support their predetermined position is not acting in good faith or seriously engaging in the discussion. I also think it is better to be cautious with this, then amend the rules later if needed, than the reverse. Vsst (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-ish While I can see the possible issues with someone saying to ChatGPT "here's what I want to say, please give me a response that's as convincing as possible" I definitely don't think that this is a clear sign of bad faith. It is not likely to be productive, since ChatGPT isn't likely to be able to make a good policy-based argument here, but I could absolutely see someone doing this who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia and thinks the changes they are having ChatGPT argue for really good changes.
Which is to say, if we ban AI-generated comments we definitely shouldn't ban them as an WP:AGF issue. Someone AI-generating their comments doesn't mean they're not acting in good faith. "Good faith" is a very low standard and just means they're not actively WP:NOTHERE, which is why it's what everyone is supposed to assume as a baseline. It's very common to think that someone is acting in good faith but that they're wrong, their arguments are bad, and the changes they want would be harmful. Loki (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Amending ATD-R

[edit]

Should WP:ATD-R be amended as follows:

−
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputed via a [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]].
+
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputed, such as by [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. The preferred venue for doing so is the appropriate [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion venue]] for the pre-redirect content, although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the page's talk page.
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Amending ATD-R)

[edit]
  • As proposer. This reflects existing consensus and current practice. Blanking of article content should be discussed at AfD, not another venue. If someone contests a BLAR, they're contesting the fact that article content was removed, not that a redirect exists. The venue matters because different sets of editors patrol AfD and RfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summoned by bot. I broadly support this clarification. However, I think it could be made even clearer that, in lieu of an AfD, if a consensus on the talkpage emerges that it should be merged to another article, that suffices and reverting a BLAR doesn't change that consensus without good reason. As written, I worry that the interpretation will be "if it's contested, it must go to AfD". I'd recommend the following: This may be done through either a merge discussion on the talkpage that results in a clear consensus to merge. Alternatively, or if a clear consensus on the talkpage does not form, the article should be submitted through Articles for Deletion for a broader consensus to emerge. That said, I'm not so miffed with the proposed wording to oppose it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this proposal as precluding a merge discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't either, but I see the wording of although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the article's talk page closer to "if the person who contested/reverted agrees on the talk page, you don't need an AfD" rather than "if a consensus on the talk page is that the revert was wrong, an AfD is not needed". The second is what I see general consensus as, not the first. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly support the idea, an AFD is going to get more eyes than an obscure talkpage, so I suspect it is the better venue in most cases. I'm also unsure how to work this nuance in to the prose, and not suspect the rare cases where another forum would be better, such a forum might emerge anyway. CMD (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my extensive comments in the prior discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I don't see much difference between the status quo and the proposed wording. Basically, the two options, AfD or the talk page, are just switched around. It doesn't address the concerns that in some cases RfD is or is not a valid option. Perhaps it needs a solid "yes" or "no" on that issue? If RfD is an option, then that should be expressed in the wording. And since according to editors some of these do wind up at RfD when they shouldn't, then maybe that should be made clear here in this policy's wording, as well. Specifically addressing the RfD issue in the wording of this policy might actually lead to positive change. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to oppose. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the change in wording to state the preference for AFD in the event of a conflict, because AFD is more likely to result in binding consensus than simply more talk. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Thryduulf's reasoning in the antecedent discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. AfD can handle redirects, merges, DABifies...the gamut. This kind of discussion should be happening out in the open, where editors versed in notability guidelines are looking for discussions, rather than between two opposed editors on an article talk page (where I doubt resolution will be easily found anyways). Toadspike [Talk] 11:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support firstly, because by "blank and redirect" you're fundamentally saying that an article shouldn't exist at that title (presumably either because it's not notable, or it is notable but it's best covered at another location). WP:AFD is the best location to discuss this. Secondly, because this has been abused in the past. COVID-19 lab leak theory is one example; and when it finally reached AFD, there was a pretty strong consensus for an article to exist at that title, which settled a dispute that spanned months. There are several other examples; AFD has repeatedly proven to be the best settler of "blank and redirect" situations, and the best at avoiding the "low traffic talk page" issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my concerns have been aired and I'm comfortable with using AfD as a primary venue for discussing any pages containing substantial article content. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - So as I see it, the changes proposed are simply to say that disputes should be handled at AfD in preference over the talk page, which I agree with, and also to acknowledge that a dispute over a BLAR could consist of something other than a reversion, which it can. Sounds like a good wording adjustment to me, and it matches what I understand to be already existing wikipedian practice anyway. I agree that it may be a good idea to expressly state in policy that a BLAR should not be deleted at RfD, ever... a BLAR could be retargetted at RfD, but if a BLAR is proposed for deletion it needs to go to AfD instead... but that's not at issue in this proposal, so it's off topic for now. Fieari (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Amending ATD-R)

[edit]
  • Oppose. The status quo reflects the nuances that Chipmunkdavis has vocalized. There are also other venues to consider: if the page is a template, WP:TFD would be better. If this is long-stable as a redirect, RfD is a better venue (as I've argued here, for example). -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The intent here is to address articles. Obviously TfD is the place to deal with templates and nobody is suggesting otherwise. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The section in question is about pages, not articles. If the proposed wording is adapted, it would be suggesting that WP:BLAR'd templates go to AfD. As I explained in the previous discussion, that's part of the reason why the proposed wording is problematic and that it was premature for an RfC on the matter. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a bit of workshopping, how about changing doing so to articles? -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Pinging @Consarn, @Berchanhimez, @Chipmunkdavis, @Thryduulf, @Paine Ellsworth, @Tavix. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentle reminder to editor Voorts: as I'm subscribed to this RfC, there is no need to ping me. That's just an extra unnecessary step. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone subscribes to every discussion. I regularly unsubscribe to RfCs after I !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. Just saving you some time and extra work. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    considering the above discussion, my vote hasn't really changed. this does feel incomplete, what with files and templates existing and all that, so that still feels undercooked (and now actively article-centric), hence my suggestion of either naming multiple venues or not naming any consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 23:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I'm beginning to understand those editors who said it was too soon for an RfC on these issues. While I've given this minuscule change my support (and still do), this very short paragraph could definitely be improved with a broader guidance for up and coming generations. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you re-read the RFCBEFORE discussions, the dispute was over what to do with articles that have been BLARed. That's why this was written that way. I think it's obvious that when there's a dispute over a BLARed article, it should go to AfD, not RfD. I proposed this change because apparently some people don't think that's so obvious. Nobody has or is disputing that BLARed templates should go to TfD, files to FfD, or miscellany to MfD. And none of that needs to be spelled out here per WP:CREEP. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to be fully inclusive, it could say something like "the appropriate deletion venue for the pre-redirect content" or "...the blanked content" or some such. I personally don't think that's necessary, but don't object if others disagree on that score. (To be explicit neither the change that was made, nor a change to along the lines of my first sentence, change my support). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And my support hasn't changed as well. Goodness, I'm not saying this needs pages and pages of instruction, nor even sentence after sentence. I think us old(er) farts sometimes need to remember that less experienced editors don't necessarily know what we know. I think you've nailed the solution, Thryduulf! The only thing I would add is something short and specific about how RfD is seldom an appropriate venue and why. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sorry if I came in a bit hot there. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think something about RfDs generally not being appropriate could replace the current footnote at the end of this paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: That latest change moves me to the "strong oppose" category. Again, RfD is the proper venue when the status quo is a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to back down a bit with an emphasis on the word "preferred". I agree that AfD is the preferred venue, but my main concern is if a redirect gets nominated for deletion at RfD and editors make purely jurisdictional arguments that it should go to AfD because there's article content in its history even though it's blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is a big part of why incident 91724 could become a case study. "has history, needs afd" took priority over the fact that the history had nothing worth keeping, the redirect had been stable as a blar for years, and the ages of the folks at rfd (specifically the admins closing or relisting discussions on blars) having zero issue with blars being nominated and discussed there (with a lot of similar blars nominated around the same time as that one being closed with relatively litte fuss, and blars nominated later being closed with no fuss), and at least three other details i'm missing
    as i said before, if a page was blanked relatively recently and someone can argue for there being something worth keeping in it, its own xfd is fine and dandy, but otherwise, it's better to just take it to rfd and leave the headache for them. despite what this may imply, they're no less capable of evaluating article content, be it stashed away in the edit history or proudly displayed in any given redirect's target consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 10:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained time and time again it's primarily not about the capabilities of editors at RfD it's about discoverability. When article content is discussed at AfD there are multiple systems in place that mean everybody interested or potentially interested knows that article content is being discussed, the same is not true when article content is discussed at RfD. Time since the BLAR is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    if you want to argue that watchlists, talk page notifs, and people's xfd logs aren't enough, that's fine by me, but i at best support also having delsort categories for rfd (though there might be some issues when bundling multiple redirects together, though that's nothing twinkle or massxfd can't fix), and at worst disagree because, respectfully, i don't have much evidence or hope of quake 2's biggest fans knowing what a strogg is. maybe quake 4, but its list of strogg was deleted with no issue (not even a relisting). see also quackifier, just under that discussion consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think NOTBURO/IAR would apply in those cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that as well, but unfortunately that's not reality far too often. I can see this new wording being more ammo for process wonkery. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a footnote clarifying that ameliorate your concerns? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless a note about RfD being appropriate in any cases makes it clear that it strictly limited to (a) when the content would be speedily deleted if restored, or (b) there has been explicit consensus the content should not be an article (or template or whatever), then it would move me into a strong oppose. This is not "process wonkery" but the fundamental spirit of the entire deletion process. Thryduulf (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ^Voorts, see what I mean? -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I mean this attitude is exactly why we are here. I've spent literal years explaining why I hold the position I do, and how it aligns with the letter and spirit of pretty much every relevant policy and guideline. It shouldn't even be controversial for blatantly obvious the article content should be deleted to mean "would be speedily deleteable if restored", yet on this again a single digit number of editors have spent years arguing that they know better. Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    both sides are on single digits at the time of writing this, we just need 3 more supports to make it 10 lol
    ultimately, this has its own caveat(s). namely, with the csd not covering every possible scenario. regardless of whether or not it's intentional, it's not hard to look at something and go "this ain't it, chief". following this "process" to the letter would just add more steps to that, by restoring anything that doesn't explicitly fit a csd and dictating that it has to go to afd so it can get the boot there for the exact same reason consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 10:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That alleviates my concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, though with the note that i support a different flavor of change. on top of the status quo issue pointed out by tavix (which i think we might need to set a period of time for, like a month or something), there's also the issue of the article content in question. if it's just unsourced, promotional, in-universe, and/or any other kind of fluff or cruft or whatever else, i see no need to worry about the content, as it's not worth keeping anyway (really, it might be better to just create a new article from scratch). if a blar, which has been stable as a redirect, did have sources, and those sources were considered reliable, then i believe restoring and sending to afd would be a viable option (see purple francis for an example). outside of that, i think if the blar is reverted early enough, afd would be the better option, but if not, then it'd be rfd
    for this reason, i'd rather have multiple venues named ("Suitable venues include Articles for Deletion, Redirects for Discussion, and Templates for Discussion"), no specific venue at all ("The dispute should be resolved in a fitting discussion venue"), or conditions for each venue (for which i won't suggest a wording because of the aforementioned status quo time issue) consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proper initial venue for discussing this should be the talk page; only if agreement can't be reached informally there should it proceed to AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written to capture some nuances; there may be a situation where you want a BLAR to remain a redirect, but would rather retarget it. I can't imagine the solution there is to reverse the BLAR and discuss the different redirect-location at AfD. Besides that, I think the intention is otherwise solid, as long as its consistent in practice. Moving forward it would likely lead to many old reversions of 15+ year BLAR'd content, but perhaps that's the intention; maybe only reverse the BLAR if you're seeking deletion of the page, at which point AfD becomes preferable? Article deletion to be left to AfD at that point? Utopes (talk / cont) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC), moving to support, my concerns have been resolved and I'm happy to use AfD as a primary venue for discussing article content. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the first part of the new wording makes it more vague than before. "If the change is disputed via a reversion" was clear. "If the change is disputed, such as by reversion" is vague. What other ways of dispute other than reversion are there? I am assuming "reversion" here implies reversion to pre-redirect content. If the intent of the change in wording to is incorporate scenarios where an editor prefers a redirect target of "Article B" instead of "Article A", or a dab page, or sees no appropriate target, where it is not a reversion, but a bold edit or an RfD nomination, then the accompanying phrase "before blank-and-redirecting again." does not make sense.
I oppose the second part of the new wording as well. The current wording gave editors an equal choice of forum - talk page vs XfD. Why should XfD be the preferred venue, and the talkpage be the forum only "sometimes". I see what Berchanhimez says. If an editor wants to revert and add a {{mergeto}} as a better alternative to BLAR, and all parties are agreeable to in the talk page, why force them to go to XfD. Although, I won't go as far as Espresso Addict in saying the talk page "should" be the proper initial venue, the current wording of giving equal choice of venu goes better with me, than forcing a preference. If editors do not agree on a talk page, it is understood one of them, or a neutral party will take to AfD/XfD.
I support the third part of the change, courtesy Thryduulf, of "appropriate deletion discussion venue for the pre-redirect content" which resolves Tavix's concern of AfD/TfD/MfD.
Note that I haven't touched upon RfD at all, or the prior heated discussions around it, because I don't see the current or new wordings addressing anything about Rfd. It would require a separate RfC to resolve the RfD concerns.
In summary, retain current wordings for part 1 and part 2. Go ahead with new wordings for part 3. Jay 💬 16:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first part was intended to make clear that if someone doesn't revert, but nonetheless contests the BLAR, they should still bring it to the appropriate non-RfD XfD. The second part doesn't limit anyone from going to talk to discuss things first. It merely makes clear that if something can't be resolved, it should go to the appropriate XfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Amending ATD-R)

[edit]
  • not entirely sure i should vote, but i should probably mention this discussion in wt:redirect that preceded the one about atd-r, and i do think this rfc should affect that as well, but wouldn't be surprised if it required another one consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not really in the scope of this discussion but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why BLAR is a still a thing. It's a cliche, but it's a hidden mechanism for backdoor deletion that often causes arguments and edit wars. I think AfDs and talk-page merge proposals where consensus-building exists produce much better results. It makes sense for duplicate articles, but that is covered by A10's redirection clause. J947 ‡ edits 03:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLARs are perfectly fine when uncontroversial, duplicate articles are one example but bold merges are another (which A10 doesn't cover). Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my impression that BLARs often occur without intention of an accompanying merge. J947 ‡ edits 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes because sometimes there's nothing to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say, or intend to imply, that every BLAR is related to a merge. The best ones are generally where the target article covers the topic explicitly, either because content is merged, written or already exists. The worst ones are where the target is of little to no (obvious) relevance, contains no (obviously) relevant content and none is added. Obviously there are also ones that lie between the extremes. Any can be controversial, any can be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLARs are preferable to deletion for content that is simply non-notable and does not run afoul of other G10/11/12-type issues. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to align to whatever consensus decides, but I'd like to discuss the implications because that aspect is not too clear to me. Does this mean that any time an redirect contains any history and deletion is sought, it should be restored and go to AfD? Currently there's some far-future redirects with ancient history, how would this amendment affect such titles? Utopes (talk / cont) 09:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    see why i wanted that left to editor discretion (status quo, evaluation, chance of an rm or histmerge, etc.)? i trust in editors who aren't that wonk from rfd (cogsan? cornsam?) to see a pile of unsourced cruft tucked away in the history and go "i don't think this would get any keep votes in afd" consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This is about contested BLARs, not articles that were long ago BLARed where someone thinks the redirect should be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    then it might depend. is its status as a blar the part that is being contested? if the title is being contested (hopefully assuming the pre-blar content is fine), would "move" be a fitting outcome outside of rm? is it being contested solely over meta-procedural stuff, as opposed to actually supporting or opposing its content? why are boots shaped like italy? was it stable as a redirect at the time of contest or not? does this account for its status as a blar being contested in an xfd venue (be it for restoring or blanking again)? it's a lot of questions i feel the current wording doesn't answer, when it very likely should. granted, what i suggested isn't much better, but shh
    going back to that one rfd i keep begrudgingly bringing up (i kinda hate it, but it's genuinely really useful), if this wording is interpreted literally, the blar was contested a few years prior and should thus be restored, regardless of the rationales being less than serviceable ("i worked hard on this" one time and... no reason the other), the pre-blar content being complete fancruft, and no one actually supporting the content in rfd consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 13:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that case you keep citing worked out as a NOTBURO situation, which this clraification would not override. There are obviously edge cases that not every policy is going to capture. IAR is a catch-all exception to every single policy on Wikipedia. The reason we have so much scope creep in PAGs is becaude editors insist on every exception being enumerated. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    if an outcome (blar status is disputed in rfd, is closed as delete anyway) is common enough, i feel the situation goes from "iar good" to "rules not good", at which point i'd rather have the rules adapt. among other things, this is why i want a slightly more concrete time frame to establish a status quo (while i did suggest a month, that could also be too short), so that blars that aren't blatantly worth or not worth restoring after said time frame (for xfd or otherwise) won't be as much of a headache to deal with. of course, in cases where their usefulness or lack thereof isn't blatant, then i believe a discussion in its talk page or an xfd venue that isn't rfd would be the best option consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the idea that that redirect you mentioned had to go to AfD was incorrect. The issue was whether the redirect was appropriate, not whether the old article content should be kept. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sure took almost 2 months to get that sorted out lol consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad facts make bad law, as attorneys like to say. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. @Voorts: in that case I think I agree. I.e., if somebody BLAR's a page, the best avenue to discuss merits of inclusion on Wikipedia, would be at a place like AfD, where it is treated as the article it used to be, as the right eyes for content-deletion will be present at AfD. To that end, this clarification is likely a good change to highlight this fact. I think where I might be struggling is the definition of "contesting a BLAR" and what that might look like in practice. To me, "deleting a long-BLAR'd redirect" is basically the same as "contesting the BLAR", I think?
    An example I'll go ahead and grab is 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team from cat:raw. This is not a great redirect pointed at Lincoln Blue Tigers from my POV, and I'd like to see it resolved at some venue, if not resolved boldly. This page was BLAR'd in 2024, and I'll go ahead and notify Curb Safe Charmer who BLAR'd it. I think I'm inclined to undo the BLAR, not because I think the 1900 season is particularly notable, but because redirecting the 1900 season to the page about the Lincoln Blue Tigers doesn't really do much for the people who want to read about the 1900 season specifically. (Any other day I would do this boldly, but I want to seek clarification).
    But let's say this page was BLAR'd in 2004, as a longstanding redirect for 20 years. I think it's fair to say that as a redirect, this should be deleted. But this page has history as an article. So unless my interpretation is off, wouldn't the act of deleting a historied redirect that was long ago BLAR'd, be equivalent to contesting the BLAR, that turned the page into a redirect in the first place, regardless of the year? Utopes (talk / cont) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. In 2025, you're contesting that it's a good redirect from 2004, not contesting the removal of article content. If somebody actually thought the article should exist, that's one thing, but procedural objections based on RfD being an improper forum without actually thinking the subject needs an article is the kind of insistence on needless bureaucracy that NOTBURO is designed to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thank you. WP:NOTBURO is absolutely vital to keep the cogs rolling, lol. Very oftentimes at RfD, there will be a "page with history" that holds up the process, all for the discussion to close with "restore and take to AfD". Cutting out the middle, and just restoring article content without bothering with an RfD to say "restore and take to AfD" would make the process and all workflows lot smoother. @Voorts:, from your own point of view, I'm very interested in doing something about 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, specifically, to remove a redirect from being at this title (I have no opinion as to whether or not an article should exist here instead). Because I want to remove this redirect; do you think I should take it to RfD as the correct venue to get rid of it? (Personally speaking, I think undoing the BLAR is a lot more simple and painless especially so as I don't have a strong opinion on article removal, but if I absolutely didn't want an article here, would RfD still be the venue?) Utopes (talk / cont) 21:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take that to RfD. If the editor who created the article or someone else reversed the BLAR, I'd bring it to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I think we're getting somewhere. I feel like some editors may consider it problematic to delete a recently BLAR'd article at RfD under any circumstance. Like if Person A BLAR's a brand new article, and Person B takes it to RfD because they disagree with the existence of a redirect at the title and it gets deleted, then this could be considered a "bypassal of the AfD process". Whether or not it is or isn't, people have cited NOTBURO for deleting it. I was under the impression this proposal was trying to eliminate this outcome, i.e. to make sure that all pages with articles in its history should be discussed at AfD under its merits as an article instead of anywhere else. I've nommed redirects where people have said "take to AfD", and I've nommed articles where people have said "take to RfD". I've never had an AfD close as "wrong venue", but I've seen countless RfDs close in this way for any amount of history, regardless of the validity of there being a full-blown article at this title, only to be restored and unanimously deleted at AfD. I have a feeling 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team would close in the same way, which is why I ask as it seems to be restoring the article would just cut a lot of tape if the page is going to end up at AfD eventually. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the paragraph under discussion here doesn't really speak to what should happen in the kind of scenario you're describing. The paragraph talks about "the change" (i.e., the blanking and redirecting) being "disputed", not about what happens when someone thinks a redirect ought not to exist. I agree with you that that's needless formalism/bureaucracy, but I think that changing the appropriate venue for those kinds of redirects would need a separate discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, yeah. I'm just looking at the definition of "disputing/contesting a BLAR". For this situation, I think it could be reasoned that I am "disputing" the "conversion of this article into a redirect". Now, I don't really have a strong opinion on whether or not an article should or shouldn't exist, but because I don't think a redirect should be at this title in either situation, I feel like "dispute" of the edit might still be accurate? Even if it's not for a regular reason that most BLARs get disputed 😅. I just don't think BLAR'ing into a page where a particular season is not discussed is a great change. That's what I meant about "saying a redirect ought not to exist" might be equivalent to "disputing/disagreeing with the edit that turned this into a redirect to begin with". And if those things are equivalent, then would that make AfD the right location to discuss the history of this page as an article? That was where I was coming from; hopefully that makes sense lol. If it needs a separate discussion I can totally understand that as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1900 Blue Tigers case and others like it where you think that it should not be a redirect but have no opinion about the existence or otherwise of an article then simply restore the article. Making sure it's tagged for any relevant WikiProjects is a bonus but not essential. If someone disputes your action then a talk page discussion or AfD is the correct course of action for them to take. If they think the title should be a red link then AfD is the only correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you Thryduulf. That was kind of the vibe I was leaning towards as well, as AfD would be able to determine the merits the page's existence as a subject matter. This all comes together because not too long ago I was criticized for restoring a page that contained an article in its history. In this discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Canada, I received the following message regarding my BLAR-reversal: For the record, it's really quite silly and unnecessary to revert an ancient redirect from 2011 back into a bad article that existed for all of a day before being redirected, just so that you can force it through an AFD discussion — we also have the RFD process for unnecessary redirects, so why wasn't this just taken there instead of being "restored" into an article that the restorer wants immediately deleted? I feel like this is partially comparable to 1900 Lincoln Blue Tigers football team, as both of these existed for approx a day before the BLAR, but if restoring a 2024 article is necessary per Thryduulf, but restoring a 2011 article is silly per Bearcat, I'm glad that this has the potential to be ironed out via this RfC, possibly. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly two situations where an AfD is not required to delete article content:
  1. The content meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion
  2. The content is eligible to be PRODed
Bearcat's comment is simply wrong - RfD is not the correct venue for deleting article content, regardless of how old it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll keep that in mind for my future editing, and I'll move from the oppose to the support section of this RfC. Thank you for confirmation regarding these situations! Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Note that is simply Thryduulf's opinion and is not supported by policy (despite his vague waves to the contrary). Any redirect that has consensus to delete at RfD can be deleted. I see that you supported deletion of the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#List of Strogg in Quake II. Are you now saying that should have procedurally gone to AfD even though it was blatantly obvious that the article content is not suitable for Wikipedia? -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that AfD probably would have been the right location to discuss it at. Of course NOTBURO applies and it would've been deleted regardless, really, but if someone could go back in time, bringing that page to AfD instead of RfD seems like it would have been more of an ideal outcome. I would've !voted delete on either venue. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Note that Tavix's comments are, despite their assertions to the contrary, only their opinion. It is notable that not once in the literal years of discussions, including this one, have they managed to show any policy that backs up this opinion. Content that is blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia can be speedily deleted, everything that can't be is not blatantly unsuitable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. Speedy deletion is a process that provides administrators with broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion. RfD is a deletion discussion venue for redirects, so it doesn't require speedy deletion for something that is a redirect to be deleted via RfD. Utopes recognizes there is a difference between "all redirects that have non-speediable article content must be restored and discussed at AfD" and "AfD is the preferred venue for pages with article content", so I'm satisfied to their response to my inquiry. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting yourself in a discussion about policy doe not show that your opinion is consistent with policy. Taking multiple different bits of policy and multiple separate facts, putting them all in a pot and claiming the result shows your opinion is supported by policy didn't do that in the discussion you quoted and doesn't do so now. You have correctly quoted what CSD is and what RfD is, but what you haven't done is acknowledged that when a BLARed article is nominated for deletion it is article content that will be deleted, and that article content nominated for deletion is discussed at AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I requested closure at WP:CR, but that was a week ago. Fortunately, I changed the "do not archive" date to two more weeks before the bot does something. Is one closer sufficient? If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? George Ho (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is one closer sufficient? Yes. This discussion is not that complicated. If so, why hasn't the closure been done yet? First, there's a backlog and closers try to close older discussions first. Second, see WP:NORUSH. Third, see WP:VOLUNTEER. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll agree to disagree then. From what I learned so far, having two or more closers is more efficient and quicker than waiting for just one who usually understands the policies very lot. Usually, a two-person closure is (unofficially) reserved mostly for more complex cases. Nonetheless, I think it would resolve backlogs. But your wishes and decision then. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I close a lot of discussions. It is much faster to read a discussion and write a close than it is to work on a close, send it to another person for additions/edits, wait for them to send it back, ad nauseam. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this discussion would probably take me about half an hour to an hour to read, then write a close I'm happy with. If I then had to have a back-and-forth with another editor until we were both happy with the close, things would take much longer. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, if we decided to write it together over google docs or something simultaneously, we'd both have to first read the discussion, schedule a time to chat or post messages back and forth on wiki to determine that we're on the same page (and if we're not, then neither of us should probably close it), and then actually write the close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For better understanding, I found one example: this one from 2017, which I requested such closure... well, against initiator's wishes. But the closure was somewhat criticized: Sept 2018. Tried to find other discussions containing such criticisms, but just found 2017 post-RfC discussion and past user talk discussion for better understanding, hopefully. George Ho (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We only request two or three closers when:
    • the result is not obvious to everyone and
    • the result is going to make some (i.e., a lot of) people very unhappy.
    The idea with having multiple closers is that the larger number will silence some complaints (sure, you didn't get what you wanted, but multiple admins said you lost, so complaining's probably a waste of time) and spread out some of the others (each unhappy person yells at a different closer, instead of everyone yelling at a single person).
    If you are not expecting drama, you don't need multiple closers. In fact, if the answer is completely obvious, and even the people who are "losing" agree that the consensus is against them, then you don't need any uninvolved closers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    we're at 11 supports, meaning my throwaway joke about waiting to close until there were 10 has been fulfilled. though i still disagree with how that's written, that's really the one worry i had about closing the discussion consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 10:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI image RfCs

[edit]

This has been split because the discussion is too long for this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Images with Albums/Singles

[edit]
Moved from wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Cover_Images_with_Albums/Singles

An admin suggested we escalate this to a wider audience. I'll be blunt, this might not be the best forum, but I also can't find a better one, so if I'm in the wrong place, just show me the door and the hallway to follow....

WP:FFD is routinely asked to weigh in on articles about a musical album/single. In these articles, there is usually more than one non-free cover (usually the original release and a deluxe/special edition release or the album cover and the title single cover) and the user coming to FFD is seeking input as to whether we should delete images if more than one is in the article, often citing WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Usually, these images are marginally different. It's frequent enough that it's probably 20-30% of the FFDs (or maybe it just seems that way). Rather than deal with all of these individually, I felt it might be better to simply establish a consensus to create a guideline so we can just be consistent across the board and streamline the process:

No more than a single, non-free primary album cover/primary single cover shall be placed in the article on an album/song (respectively) unless there is significant commentary about more than one cover's visual artwork appearance. When in doubt, pick a single image of the most prominent cover; anything more than that fails WP:NFCC#3a and 8. This guidance applies separately to each version about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless of how many articles there are in practice).

Your inputs are appreciated. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per feedback below, here is I updated the guidance Buffs (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VPP, not here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed wording is fine, but VPP is the best place for this. Frankly, if spurious covers fail NFCC3a/8, they should be removed anyway, we don't need a change - but I appreciate that some editors simply don't understand NFCC and will keep splattering non-frees everywhere "because it looks nice". Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are general two types of covers, beyond the one allowed for identification, that get used on singles and albums: alternate artwork such as for a specific region or a special re-release, and the artwork of a cover version. For the alternate art, that should absolutely show discussion of the artwork beyond that it was merely different as to meet NFCC#8. For covers, if the cover is likely sufficiently notable for it's own article, but editors have opted to include it in the article on the original work, it is fair to include that cover's album art for identification purposrs, as otherwise can be seen to penalize the efitors' devision for maintaining a single comprehensive article. Masem (t) 19:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to ensure I understand what you're saying. Can you give an example? Buffs (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to something like Ain't Nobody? If so, I can see your point. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be an example where many of those covers could be sepearate articles based on notability, but are covered as one, so NFCC cover use is fine. — Masem (t) 17:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the proposed wording is fine. The one thing I would consider rewording is to change the part about "visual artwork" to "appearance," just in case there end up being edge cases or we end up getting into stupid pedantic arguments about whether typography counts as visual artwork, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Excellent feedback! Buffs (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This matter was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, days before this wide discussion. @Buffs: I don't know why a proposal or this discussion is needed unless you wanna have two FFD discussions overturned or overridden (File:Moliendo café Chi sarà.png and File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg). I still can't believe that Pppery has seconded Buffs's suggestion on this. I also don't know why Gnomingstuff and Black Kite found the wording fine. The proposal would impact how FFD discussions run individually and how NFCC would be interpreted case-by-case. Also, sometimes, guidelines are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I wonder whether the proposed rule is necessary and whether others will follow through. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The FFD discussion on File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg is now reopened. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I commented that the wording of the proposal was "fine" was because I think it is fine. I do not have any issue with the proposal. I think it is sensible and is consistent with our free use policy. I don't feel that my comment was unclear at all, and I don't know why you're tagging me to clarify it. This is a public venue and people not involved in the original discussion are allowed to weigh in. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, days before this wide discussion I was unaware of that discussion.
    As for why it is needed, I'm seeing a lot of album covers up for FFD. To be blunt, I genuinely don't care that much about what happened in the past and I'm not specifically looking to overturn them. I'm looking for a consistent policy we can apply across the board and prevent such discussions from even needing to occur. If we can simply edit an article and remove an album cover from the article citing WP:POLICYX/WP:GUIDELINEY and then nominate it for speedy deletion via SD F5, then it never hits FFD at all (nor should it). If we decide 2 albums/song covers are appropriate (or more), then we can shoot down frivolous WP:FFD proposals with "This is permitted under WP:POLICYX/WP:GUIDELINEY".
    My proposal is a draft, nothing more. If you want to add to it/take away from it/propose your own here, please fire away. I welcome all such criticism. Buffs (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can simply edit an article and remove an album cover from the article citing WP:POLICYX/WP:GUIDELINEY and then nominate it for speedy deletion via SD F5, then it never hits FFD at all (nor should it). Not a fan of orphaning and tagging, honestly.
    If we decide 2 albums/song covers are appropriate (or more), then we can shoot down frivolous WP:FFD proposals with "This is permitted under WP:POLICYX/WP:GUIDELINEY". With all due respect, there's already WP:PROD, which now applies to files, especially if you're unaware of it.
    Other proposed projects (of non-free content repository), m:NonFreeWiki and m:NonFreeWiki (2), were attempted. Maybe someday someone else can propose m:NonFreeWiki (3)? George Ho (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of WP:PROD. We certainly go that route too. My point is to spell out what the procedure is and minimize unnecessary WP:FFD submissions. I'm fine with WP:PROD being listed as the preferred method. To answer a previous point, yes, handling it on a case-by-case basis and exceptions may apply, I think it's worth spelling it out to prevent as much extra work/repetitious discussion as possible.. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the sentiment, but feel that the wording doesn't work well for cover versions (c.f. Masem's comment above). I think the best way to solve this would be to state the guidance as proposed above applies separately to each version about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless of how many articles it is in practice). For example at Ticket to Ride (song) there is sufficient content for a non-free image for the versions by The Beatles and The Carpenters, but not any of the other cover versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.... Ticket to Ride (song) isn't probably the best example. How about Hanging on the Telephone (FFD discussion) and Ain't Nobody (FFD discussions #1 and #2)? George Ho (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what is decided, the wording under [[Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover] should match when we're done. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Currently, the instructions don't mention contextual significance, even when "critical commentary" exemplifies it. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    we can update that too, when we're done :-) Buffs (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point! Buffs (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether the proposed guidance will be clear enough. Do we mean something like this?

    "Articles about albums and singles normally contain one album cover. If more than one image is wanted (e.g., differing designs in different countries), then the article must contain at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed non-free album covers. This content must have an inline citation to a source other than the album/cover itself. "Substantial" generally means at least 20 words per album cover and that the content is more than a simple description of the album's appearance (e.g., "In 2010, the lead singer said the all-blue color scheme is meant to evoke feelings of both literal and figurative coolness", not "The cover shows a blue guitar on a blue background").

    If that's what we really mean, then we should probably say that.WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I love the general tenor! But I think we need to include the specifics brought up here though. Specifically, we are doing our best to establish a black line and limit such instances. I don't think the phrasing you proposed covers NFCC at all nor does it really cover the problems. People cannot simply decide they want another image because it's "prettier". Since these are copyrighted images, they must comply with NFCC. Many of these additional covers are not substantially different. I don't think a sentence word count is the best method, but I don't know of another bright line standard that really works well. Perhaps...

    "Articles about albums and singles normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted. If more than one such image is desired (differing designs in different countries, a deluxe cover that is substantively different, etc), then the article must contain at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed album covers. This content must reflect significant, third-party commentary about each cover's appearance. "Substantial" generally means at least 20 words per album cover and that the content is more than a simple description of the album's appearance (e.g., "In 2010, the lead singer said the all-blue color scheme is meant to evoke feelings of 'both literal and figurative coolness' and clearly evokes that with its soaring chorus...", not "The cover shows a blue guitar on a blue background"). If an article discusses more than one version of a single song, it is appropriate to include the single's cover art in each instance if a separate article is not warranted; additional commentary is not needed if separate articles do not exist. Each instance of a copyrighted work must include a fair use rationale. Criteria that meet the above description are presumed to meet the qualifications specified in WP:NFCC#3a and 8. This guidance applies separately to each version about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless of how many articles there are in practice).

    Buffs (talk)
    Last part needs to be clear that we are taking covers that could be notable for a standalone article, but editors opted fir it to be included in one article. A non. Notable (but verify able) cover song does not get a non free cover image. Masem (t) 17:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    point taken. Before I make any more updates/changes, I want to see if we have any more inputs. This is great feedback! Buffs (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about If an article discusses more than one version of a single song, it is appropriate to include the single's cover art in each instance if a separate article is not warranted; additional commentary is not needed if separate articles do not exist. Perhaps "it may be appropriate"?
    I think we should explicitly exclude near-duplicate or "not substantially different" album covers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed Buffs (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases, such as The Triptych, where the original release involves multiple versions, each equally notable and useful for identification. I think the proposed wording allows for such exceptions, though.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely concur. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working text based on above discussion. Feel free to edit as consensus develops:

Articles about albums and singles normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted. In order to meet compliance with WP:NFCC#3a and 8, if more than one such image is desired (differing designs in different countries, a deluxe cover that is substantively different, etc), then the article must contain at least one substantial sentence about each additional displayed album cover. This content must reflect significant, third-party commentary about each cover's appearance. "Substantial" generally means at least 20 words per album cover and that the content is more than a simple description of the album's appearance (e.g., "In 2010, the lead singer said the all-blue color scheme is meant to evoke feelings of 'both literal and figurative coolness' and clearly evokes that with its soaring chorus...", not "The cover shows a blue guitar on a blue background"). More than one cover that is not substantially different is prohibited. Some articles discuss more than one version of a single song. Where this is the case, it may be appropriate to include an image for some or all of the versions about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless whether such articles exist in practice); additional commentary is not needed if separate articles do not exist. Each instance of a copyrighted work must include a fair use rationale. This guidance applies separately to each version about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article. Criteria that meet the above description are presumed to meet NFCC qualifications

Note that this section reflects feedback below
Minor change "at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed album covers" to "at least one substantial sentence about each additional displayed album covers" or something like that. NFCI#1 still allows for one non-free for purposes of identification, but only one, so we dont need to expect any substance about that cover (though if there is stuff to be said, obviously we benefit to include it). I'd also introduce NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 earlier as these are the two key drivers in limiting images of album covers. --Masem (t) 19:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. Buffs (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of bits that I think are confusingly worded -
  • More than one cover that is not substantially different is prohibited. I suggest rephrasing this to something like "each non-free cover image must be substantially different to all other images used in the article".
  • If an article discusses more than one version of a single song, it may be appropriate to include the single's cover art in each instance if a separate article is not warranted; additional commentary is not needed if separate articles do not exist. perhaps something like "Some articles discuss more than one version of a single song. Where this is the case, it is sometimes appropriate to include an image for some or all of the versions about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless of whether such articles exist in practice)."?
Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Buffs (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

[edit]

Should bots like Citation bot be allowed to remove redundant 'raw' PubMed URLs, and raw OCLC URLs when pmid/oclc identifiers are present. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Details

[edit]

Following the last, extremely frustrating discussion about the behaviour of bots wrt to links, the consensus that 'emerged' from it was that Citation bot was to leave urls alone, unless it was replacing them with a free alternative (e.g. |url=https://paywall.com → |doi=10.1234/654321 + |doi-access=free or |url=https://paywall.com → |url=https://freetoread.com).

However, there are two corner case I would like to establish consensus for the removal of a link.

The reason is that those links will never contain free versions of articles, they will link to either the PubMed database, which only contain abstracts (free versions would be hosted at PubMed Central instead), or the OCLC database, which formerly held google book previews (then deemed useful), but no longer does.

This means that these urls make it look like a free version is accessible, when really none are, making readers click through links that lead them to nowhere useful. Note that this isn't a proposal to removal any URL covered by an identifier (e.g. |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/123456 → |jstor=123456) that may or may not be free, only these two, known to never host free versions.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Number of articles with PubMed links: 7.6k
  • Number of articles with OCLC links: 32.6k
Nobody (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote

[edit]
  • Support as proposer. These link are reader-hostile. They also discourage the addition of free links because it makes it look like there already are such links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular assessment of PubMed, but I would oppose this for OCLC because a lot of citations to OCLC for articles on books aren't citing the work attached to the OCLC, but the bibliographic data in OCLC itself. Links to it when that is not the case should be removed, but the bot cannot tell those apart. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that would be a {{cite web}} with an OCLC url, not a {{cite book}} with a url pointing to OCLC. The RFC concerns the latter, not the former. E.g., the bot would cleanup
    • Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (2007). Manifest destiny and the expansion of America. Turning Points in History Series. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-85109-834-7. OCLC 659807062.
    to
    • Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (2007). Manifest destiny and the expansion of America. Turning Points in History Series. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-85109-834-7. OCLC 659807062.
    Not
    to
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it can distinguish between the two use cases then I have no opposition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the use of {{citation}} template in a similar fashion? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just as easy to detect a {{citation}} where |work=Worldcat (or equivalent) than a {{cite web}} with |work=Worldcat (or equivalent). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that Headbomb's description of the situation is accurate (it does fit with my knowledge of PubMed and OCLC, but my knowledge esp. of the latter is limited), I support this proposal. Toadspike [Talk] 13:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom -- GreenC 19:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SURPRISE. When we link to a title, readers expect to find the linked reference at the link. No information will be lost because the discussed cases always involve an id containing the same link. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support utterly reasonable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes sense and the link is still present at the end of the citation. Rjjiii (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support title-links give the false impression to readers. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this Double-barreled question needs separate answers. If I'm looking at a citation for a book and have a choice between:
  • then I don't want the version whose link on the title takes me to https://search.worldcat.org/title/1079344976 But if I'm instead looking at a citation for a WP:PAYWALLED article, and I have a choice between:
  • then I'd actually prefer having a link on the title take me to the abstract on PubMed (or at least not object to it). Those of us who are familiar with the literature and our citation conventions know that this is a "duplicate" or "redundant" link, but ordinary people don't know what all those acronyms mean. They expect that clicking the link on the title will take them to some useful place, so it should do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to Identify Well-Disguised and Highly Trained Paid Editors

[edit]

Recently, several well-respected editors and administrators have been caught engaging in paid editing. A few years ago, most paid editors focused only on the articles they were paid to edit, and their bias was often so obvious that WP:COI could be easily established.

However, as Wikipedia has grown in popularity, many organizations have started hiring highly educated individuals or even reaching out to established Wikipedia editors. This new generation of paid editors is much harder to detect because they leave no clear evidence. They know how to present themselves as neutral contributors, editing a wide range of articles to build a positive reputation before subtly pushing biased points of view.

Those who are retired from their professional careers often have plenty of time for such activities. In contrast, people who are still working or studying may struggle to dedicate so much time to in-depth research, and it seems that they have more time for Wikipedia article research than their real life work and family, friends. Some new editors start contributing, and within just a month, it seems as if they have been editing for years. 2409:40E1:106E:6AD3:6D77:E75E:FE79:D35A (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this seems like a call to assume bad faith of experienced editors who make a lot of contributions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I hope this was offered in good faith, it would fit into a campaign to tear down Wikipedia. Such claims really need hard evidence to be taken credibly. Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. While I get the argument against COI editors and such, it really feels like an exercise in futility to be overly concerned. Everyone has a bias, everyone has motivations for editing or doing anything. A rule that is unenforceable without doxing is a suggestion, to assume good faith, it is better to avoid a witch hunt against people who are being paid to do something. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doxing wouldn't be enough to detect this. Even if you know someone's name and where they live, you don't know whether that person is being paid under the table to edit Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Another thing to note is often people who are extremely close to a topic may be the most interested and qualified to write about it. Someone like a military intelligence officer could be an editor in their free time and edit articles related to geopolitics. The edits should be enough to speak for themselves, a witch hunt or being overly concerned with people taking checks isn't productive. I'm worried about mud slinging and uncivil accusations on controversial topics more then I am about a COI editor. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worry about the impossibility of defending against COI accusations. Not only do we have different ideas about what constitutes a COI (e.g., I've seen editors claim that everyone has a COI for their current home, their birthplace, and all schools they ever attended, but most of us don't agree with that), but most of the accusations are really just someone's hunch, and some are an attempt to exclude editors with the Wrong™ viewpoint from participating. I mean, it's just "obvious" that anyone who disagrees with me is getting paid to spread misinformation, right? There couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason for not sharing my POV, so if we disagree, then you have a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is indeed a legitimate concern. Elon Musk and other moneyed interests have a tenuous relationship with Wikipedia to say the least (See [1] &[2] & [3]). It can be extremely difficult to discern human bias from a conflict of interest without improving verification and measures that would create, for lack of a better term, a firewall. AI is also another can of worms in this regard. In a sense it does feel futile to attempt to guard against it, as the core principle of WP:AGF seems to become somewhat self-defeating in terms of maintaining WP's neutral point of view. However, this is why we have committees and certain levels of "bureaucracy" on WP. As much as editors complain about them, they are currently our best defense against this issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be sure, there would have to be tracking of money. But "Wikipedia" is not going to get that information about where all the earnings of users come from. So we will just have to stick with noting bias, whitewashing and promotion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The IP editor who began this discussion raises an interesting point, but I don't see any way to deal with it. Over time I've come to realize that while paid editing is undesirable, it can't be dealt with easily and is fundamentally a Foundation issue, not one that ordinary editors should sweat over. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am unaware of any administrators on en.wp recently being found to be involved in paid editing. Paid consultancy might happen, but that is not paid editing. But yes, it is very difficult to identify paid editors if they go out of their way to hide paid editing. That said, most serial paid editors (stupid term, but I want to seperate this from the person working for a company that occasionally makes edits to an article related to the company, but does not otherwise engage in paid editing) rely heavily on socks rather than building one account and disgusing their paid edits within the unpaid one. These editors could potentially be identified by technical means - it is not a lost cause - but it would involve the WMF. Those who do try to create a semi-established account that does paid editing and unpaid editing tend to display clues in their choice of topics and tend to risk having all of their paid work tagged and deleted if they make a mistake, so they seem to be less common, at least within the paid editors I tend to see. - Bilby (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you will remember [Nihonjoe] 2409:40E1:10F8:6E83:7063:A2B9:108D:DF8 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I tend to think of that being a year old, but it isn't quite, and the only example I can think of in recent years. I was thinking you meant more recently than that. At any rate, the rest of the comment holds, I think. - Bilby (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume that most people are aware of the occasional case. In a typical year, we have about 800,000 registered editors who make 1+ edits. The page you linked to was read by less than 1% of them. I'd guess that 95% of last year's editors never even heard about it. (You can become a registered editor! Special:CreateAccount is free and does not even require an e-mail address. Creating an account and logging in will hide your IP address.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have a magic wand that would let us detect paid editing, but one step might be to make WP:PAID stricter (in the past many people have argued that most of its requirements are optional.) Another step might be to try and enforce WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV more strictly, since the ultimate tell of any paid editor is that their edits will be wholly tendentious - one-sided editing is what they're being paid for, so it is the one thing they cannot conceal. But this has its own limitations; TEND is notoriously difficult to enforce. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're thinking of the guidance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing? (The paid-contribution disclosure requirement from the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use is mandatory.) My impression is that for detected editors, the community tends to enforce the guidance fairly strictly. The key challenge is that English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions require disputes to be resolved by community discussion, and the community's capacity for discussion is quickly depleted. isaacl (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity

[edit]

I've always thought of Wikipedia as a source of information that could be trusted and was written with integrity and proper English. I was researching Mayor Adam's and as it became increasingly clear that it written with bias and vulgar language (see attached). So much for integrity. 2603:7000:D202:5F0F:A548:72AF:17E1:18D5 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Up his butt" was the exact wording. 2603:7000:D202:5F0F:A548:72AF:17E1:18D5 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question appears to be Eric Adams. I've not read it in anywhere near sufficient detail to have an opinion about whether it is biased, but the phrase you are objecting to is a small part of a verbatim quote by Tom Homan directed towards Adams, and in that context (which might be a little clearer) it seems proper for an encyclopaedia to include it. Do note that Wikipedia is not censored, so while we do not go out of our way to be puerile or shocking we do include material that some people find offensive, including vulgar language. Thryduulf (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AutoBiographies

[edit]

I need to know what your policy on autobiographies might be. I might be willing to write mine on Wikipedia depending on issues with my naming names. Still, Statutes of Limitations have to apply after 50 years sans murder (not a problem). I asked this question somewhere else but evidently the wrong place since I got no response. Or maybe it's such an odd idea you don't know what to think.

I'll also have to study your edit / disedit guidelines more closely. (I really don't need problems with shitheads. Cancer causes me more than enough as it is.)

I propose to write non-fiction under my own name but, perhaps, under an alias url. I'm working on the timeline now & I'm mostly done with the basics. I'm going to fill the thing out into a actual autobiography and also plan to add pictures throughout. (This idea is kind of a surprise for my grandchildren.) This will make my page fair sized, if not huge. Can you host a book-size page? Can you host video or video links? Video would expand the page's size quickly. I never considered editing anything on Wikipedia before so this is all new. What are your limits? (How about for a regular donor? I've been donating Franklins for decades. Irregularly, but so's life. And I think you're on my donate monthly list now.) But I suppose that shouldn't alter limits. I don't much care for inequality before the law so maybe I shouldn't try to push policy. Habit. Or, I offer more content than most as I've lived a strangely varied life. Difficult for me to judge this objectively (if objectively is how this question should be judged).

And I do support your work. You ended up being my go-to first click if I'm looking for information. That's the other reason for this offer. Maybe I'd start a fad. Humans'll line up for anything. lol

Anyway, you get the idea of the type of questions I'm asking here, I think. I got a couple of other questions but plan to put each in their appropriate technical catagory. Thanks for listening.

Bret Blakeslee AKA Odric-the-Mad Tempe, AZ, USA 2025.2 Odric-the-mad (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, read WP:Autobiography. Second, while the author's user name is attached to the edit history on every edit made, we do not have by-lines in the article space of Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia, and while it is certainly non-fiction, an encyclopedia is a limited sub-set in style and content of non-fiction. Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on autobiographies is located at Wikipedia:Autobiography, but in summary writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged as it will nearly always be an inappropriate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Similarly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material, fiction or non-fiction, other than encyclopaedia articles based on previously published works.
There are many useful links to information about what Wikipedia is and is not, what our policies and guidelines are, and other information for novices at Help:Contents. You can also ask questions and get advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Finally, while we do welcome donations, they are always completely optional and bring no privileges or other benefits on Wikipedia - you get treated the same, receive the same rights and are subject to the same expectations whether you donate £100m a month, never donate a penny or anything in between. Thryduulf (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to treat everyone the same, because none of the volunteers who make content-related decisions have any access to the financial records. You could claim to donate any amount, and none of us would be able to prove or disprove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you should make your own website. A book-length autobiography for the gradnkids is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Purchasing a website and hosting is pretty cheap these days. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw a bit in on websites, I teach a class that involves website design/hosting and it can be done for free using several routes. I prefer Google Sites personally, but you can use Github, or a few others. Having a Google account allows you to make a "Google Site" for free, gives you a Google Drive with 15 GB of storage you can use to host content for the site, and a YouTube account you can use for videos. The free Google Site URL isn't the prettiest, but you can pay for a better one. Not affiliated with Google, just wanted to share this option as it is pretty nifty in my opinion and I don't think many people know about it even if they use a Google account daily. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. It's a really BAD idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy about custom browsers/editors?

[edit]

I've been considering programming a desktop app for browsing and/or editing Wikipedia using the API, but I wanted to make sure that there's no policy which would prevent me from doing such a thing. I'm aware that AWB requires permissions to be granted before you can use it, but I'm unsure if there is any general policy that applies to all third-party applications that can edit through the API. Thanks! Gracen (they/them) 20:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gracen! No specific rules, I don't think, as long as the editing isn't so automated as to run afoul of the bot policy (including the section on semi-automated or assisted editing). Obviously, you're responsible for any edit you perform, whether automated, manual, or in between, including any edits that are the result of a bug or other malfunction, so there is an element of "use-at-your-own-risk". But I imagine you're well aware of that, so beyond that, I think you can go nuts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the quick response! I'll take a look at the bot policy, as I've never read through it before (and I assumed it only applied to fully automated editing), so thanks for the link! As you assumed, I am familiar with the "use-at-your-own-rist" part; I'm assuming that any accidental harmful edits that are obviously accidents (and are quickly reverted) will be covered by WP:AGF. Gracen (they/them) 20:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that any accidental harmful edits that are obviously accidents (and are quickly reverted) will be covered by WP:AGF. generally yes, although it depends on your attitude - communicate, be honest, apologise where needed, fix your own mistakes as soon as you can after you become aware of them, and try your best not to make mistakes in the first place (especially avoid repeatedly making the same mistakes) and you should be fine. Bear in mind that the absolute number of errors is at least as important as the error rate, particularly in reading-facing environments (articles, article templates, etc) but conversely practically nobody will care how you mess up in your own userspace (unless you're flooding recent changes) so do as much testing as you can there. Hopefully this is all common sense, but it's where others have come unstuck in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably want to be aware of foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation API Usage Guidelines, which contains a link to the user agent policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to hang out with some MediaWiki folks. Start with mw:How to contribute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Can you elaborate on what you mean? I have no experience with and don't plan on gaining any experience with PHP or JavaScript—beyond what is absolutely necessary, of course—and I don't plan on contributing to MediaWiki itself. I was under the impression that the api.php documentation would be enough to work with. Gracen (they/them) 16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation might be sufficient, and it might not, depending in how up-to-date the documentation is and whether the exact thing you need is documented in the level of detail you need. If it's not, then the people who know any information that is missing from the documentation hang out at MediaWiki.org, and I've found them to be generous about answering questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOBTITLES RfC

[edit]

More input would be appreciated at the RfC concerning the proposed simplification of MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Tweet has an RfC

[edit]

Template:Tweet has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thanks, Tantomile (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC has been closed/withdrawn ~ LindsayHello 14:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Two Questions About Speedy Keeps

[edit]

I have two questions about Speedy Keeps of deletion discussions.

First, when are non-administrative closes of Speedy Keep in order or not in order?

Second, if an editor thinks that a deletion discussion was incorrectly closed as Speedy Keep, is there a means of challenging the Speedy Keep so that the deletion discussion can resume? Is Deletion Review available, just as it would be on a Keep after discussion? By the way, the second question is hypothetical; I don't think that any deletion discussion was recently incorrectly Speedy Kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. For any of the reasons listed at WP:SK.
  2. Follow the deletion review process: go to the closer's talk, ask them to reopen, and if they decline, go to DRV.
voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Voorts. Having closed SKs on occassion, my personal position as a "NAC-er" is only to close where it is clearly unambiguous (which to me is a higher threshold than not controversial) and I find this most commonly with nominator withdrawal and no support for deletion (WP:CSK c.1(iii)). Many other criteria for speedy keep seem to fall outside that higher threshold possibility so I tend to stay away. I've discussed previously that the differences between the criteria under 1 (absence) and 3 (error) may not be immediately apparent. What's different and has more latitude will be SNOW closes, which does not infrequently get conflated in NAC SKs. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is time for a new policy?

[edit]

Hi, certain articles replicate sources recommended by ChatGPT, which may not always be entirely accurate. I think Introducing a new policy could effectively address this issue. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a new policy for this? If source A simply republishes or quotes source B, one we determine the reliability based on how reliable source B is. If a source is simply replicating ChatGPT then the replication is exactly as reliable as ChatGPT (which is of wildly inconsistent accuracy, ranging from completely correct in all regards to the exact opposite and everything in between). Replicating an unreliable AI chat bot is no different to replicating an unreliable human source. If what you are talking about is not using ChatGPT as a source but using a third party source suggested by ChatGPT, then ChatGPT is completely irrelevant to the reliability of the source: ChatGPT recommends both sources of the highest reliability and sources that are utter garbage (as well as sources that don't exist). All sources suggested by ChatGPT should be checked for reliability and relevance, but then all sources added to articles should be checked for reliability and relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been quite busy doing your best to try and keep Wikipedia from having any kind of policy on generati AI, haven't you? If there's a thread on this, you're there defending generative AI. The reality is that many of us are now dealing with the ramifications of machine-generated text, which is almost always just outright garbage trained on who-knows-what, from editors and we clearly need policies on it. We didn't sign up to sort through someone's prompt-generated misinformation and it is a total waste of every editor's time here to even engage with machine-generated text. :bloodofox: (talk)
I'm not defending generative AI, I'm defending Wikipedia from short-sighted policies that are unnecessarily redundant to existing policies and/or will do more harm than good. If text is garbage it's garbage regardless of the source, if it isn't garbage then it isn't garbage regardless of the source. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Wikipedia is now plagued with machine-generated text that the few human editors here have to contend with. Recently I have had to deal with two of such instances full of misinformation and other nonsense. Without action this problem is only going to spread and get worse. We need policies on this yesterday: we're well on our way to becoming overwhelmed by AI slop that takes two seconds to produce and much longer to correct in every nook and cranny of the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources may not be entirely accurate. While people should definitely not rely on ChatGPTs description of the source, it may be a worthwhile tool for finding sources with reliable and usable content... much as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but one of its great uses is finding the sources it uses on a given topic, which themselves may be reliable. So if the policy change you're suggesting is that you can't use sources suggested by ChatGPT, I don't see it... but if it's some sort of policy that you cannot use a source until you actually verify what the source says, that's at the very least a good guideline no matter where you find the source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are these fake sources? Sources that are real but don’t support the content? Or what?
Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did check just two of these, and in one of them I found real problems. In this paragraph claiming controversy about a living subject, there were two sources -- one which was a tweet from the subject (which did not thus show "controversy", although it was certainly a statement that could have generated such), and one which covered a controversy without mentioning the subject. Plus, it had the biggest Wikipedia sin of all: curly quotes. So that definitely looks like ChatGPT generating things that are not up to our standards, but also something that could have been caught if a good faith editor generating such material had checked the sources and understood BLP sourcing requirements. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have the responsibility of using citations to sources that they read to craft the text they wrote. They also are responsible to evaluate the reliability of sources and their suitability for the content being added. What additional guidance are you proposing? isaacl (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposed edit filter to track these additions. Of course, the filter is not going to capture all uses of llms, just the ones where the llm helpfully appends a tag to the url and where the editor does not delete those tags. Last time I checked some they were riddled with problems, but you can revert them under current policies. CMD (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1278381192"