Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup

"Unsupervised" AI-generated image?
Hiya! I got pointed toward this project when I asked about declaration of AI-generated media in an external group. I noticed that the article for Kemonā uses a Stable Diffusion-generated image, which has not been declared. I noticed it, as the file has previously been up for deletion-discussion on Commons, but was kept as it was "in use". If used, shouldn't AI-generated media be declared in its description / image legend? EdoAug (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @EdoAug I don't know that there's a guideline about this in specific but I'd say so. The copyright of Stable Diffusion images is still in the courts afaik, so we might end up having to remove all of those images in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible use of AI to engage in Wikipedia content dispute discussions
It was suggested to me that this maybe a good place to ask. A response seemed particularly hollow at Talk:Canadian_AIDS_Society so I checked on GPTZero and ZeroGPT. The first says 100% AI, and latter says about 25% likely. Quillbot says ~75% likely. So, the results vary widely based on the checker used. Is it actually likely that a certain 100% manually written contents would get tagged as 100% AI on GPTZero? Do any of human observers here feel the response in question here could be 100% human written? Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * These detectors are really unreliable, but from looking at the linked comment (and only this comment), I'm certain that it is AI generated. 3df (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the one that starts "I appreciate your third-party perspective and the insights you provided...", right? There's almost no way an actual human wrote that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That one came up as 100%. Then, another one of that user's response came up as 80% or so AI in GPTZero. Graywalls (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I really recommend not caring about the detectors. A broken clock saying it's midnight isn't more convincing to me than saying it's 4:30. Remsense  诉  16:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I recommend just eschewing the detectors entirely. Point being, "if it quacks like a duck", and all that. Remsense  诉  03:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, that Canadian AIDS Society's Establishment section returns 100% AI on GPTZero as well and sure looks pretty hollow to me. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There are quite a lot of citations on that section, though, so the best action here is simply to see if they verify the text. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on AI generated images
I found an article about a historical individual that contained a fully AI generated image. I mentioned this on the Teapot page and the image eventually got removed because it was original research. I tried to find some Wikipedia guideline or rule about the use of AI images but I couldn't find any. Since this WikiProject is about AI content, I came here to ask about the official Wikipedia policy on AI images, if there is any. Are AI images supposed to be removed simply because they're original research or is there something specific regarding AI images that warrants their removal? I'm looking for details regarding the use of AI images on Wikipedia and when are AI images acceptable to use. Thank you all in advance for your responses. Broadhead Arrow (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! You can put it on the noticeboard at WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts. I don't think there is a specific policy about images, but they are usually only vaguely accurate and/or relevant, and nearly always original research. A few, like that on Listenbourg, are kept specifically because they were used in reliable sources talking about the topic and have encyclopedic value on their own. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The most relevant links I can come up with: There was this addition to the image use policy: special:permalink/1178613191, which was reverted. See also c:Commons:AI-generated media. See also this user talk discussion (some examples have survived) and the Commons deletion discussions that deleted most of the concerned images.—Alalch E. 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue for Wikipedia is whether we can be sure that the image is a true representation of the subject. Shantavira|feed me 10:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any encyclopedia article where an AI-generated image would be appropriate. Remsense  诉  11:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How can I check big additions to an article please?
Further to your helpful advice above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup a lot of new text has recently been added to Poverty in Turkey by a student @Roach619. I have asked on their talk page for them to add cites but I doubt they will reply as their course has now ended.

Is there a tool I or their tutor or can use to check whether the new text was AI generated please? If not what are your opinions please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm pretty confident that text was generated by AI. It has a lot of the key indicators I'd look for. It's probably too late to do anything about it, but I've reverted it to the prior version. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Wordsmith I agree, it reads like LLM writing. @Chidgk1 I've had some success with ZeroGPT, and also by asking ChatGPT to create the article in question and look at how the tool words it. I'm seeing more this term, but I suspect it's because I'm developing more of an eye for it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (idea lab)
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Some common AI-generated phrases

 * "testament"/"testifies"
 * "stands as a testament"
 * "serves as a testament"
 * "testifies to the"
 * "living testament"
 * "legacy"
 * "enduring legacy"
 * "enduring cultural legacy"
 * "lasting legacy"/"impact"
 * "indelible mark"
 * "it is"/"it's important to note that"
 * "cultural tapestry"/"fabric"
 * "in conclusion"
 * "community"
 * "enduring human spirit"/"enduring spirit"/"resilience"/"commitment"
 * "renowned"
 * "boasts"
 * "visionary"
 * "fostering"
 * "overcoming"
 * "transcended"/"transcending"
 * "in the face of"
 * "in the face of adversity"
 * "ushering in a new era"
 * "prowess"
 * "social"/"cultural fabric"
 * "luminary"
 * "resonated"/"resonates"
 * "bygone era"
 * "ethos"

On their own, the presence of these phrases do not necessarily indicate that the text is likely to be AI-generated. However, if multiple catchphrases are found together, there is a far greater likelihood of the text being AI-generated. For example:


 * "as a testament" + "resilience"

They are often, but not always, found in articles about South Asia-related topics.

More at WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI Catchphrases.

Florificapis (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Panel on Wikipedia & Gen AI at WikiConference North America?
Hi, I'm working on putting together a roundtable discussion for WikiConference North America this year about generative AI and Wikipedia. If any participants in this WikiProject are planning to be there, I'd love to have your voice! Program (and scholarship) submissions are due Friday (May 31), so if you are interested, please reach out to me by Thursday (May 30), ideally at lianna@undefinedwikiedu.org so I can share the draft of what we're proposing and see if you want to participate. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT Userscript
I was going through userscripts today when I found User:Phlsph7/WikiChatbot. It seems to use ChatGPT to embed a chatbot into Wikipedia pages, which can give editing advice. I'm not sure if there should be a wider discussion on whether this sort of thing should be allowed to be installed, but figured I'd raise it here first. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for raising this issue. For previous discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:Large_language_models and Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_75. As with most AI technology these days, it is a two-sided sword. It can be a helpful tool if used responsibly and in tune with the documentation and the recommendations at WP:LLM. However, it can also cause problems if potential pitfalls are ignored. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely see how it can be useful in the right hands, I use Generative AI in my personal and professional lives all the time. Mostly to give myself ideas, summarize things or edit documents/emails for tone. Never for text that gets submitted on Wikipedia, that just seems too dangerous even if I know what I'm doing. There should probably be some safeguards around it's use.
 * Is there a way that we can monitor the pages it is used on? Something like how Twinkle or SPIhelper can log activity to a file in userspace, but ideally it would be automatic rather than toggling it on/off. I know we can use Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Phlsph7/WikiChatbot.js to see who has it installed, but that doesn't tell us where it's being used. A mandatory edit summary tag or edit filter entry might also be ideas, or limiting it to certain usergroups. Courtesy ping to who has it instaleld and is also a member here, maybe he can give some insight on how it can be used or suggestions on safeguards. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think an edit filter entry would probably be the best solution, if that can be implemented. I'm also a bit concerned about some non-editor-facing features, like the chatbot giving quizzes to readers (apparently with no independent verification of the quiz contents). Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the suggestions. I removed the quiz-button (the quiz content was based on the article text selected by the user).
 * Twinkle and spihelper directly perform edits to wikipedia pages: roughly simplified, you press a button and then the script makes an edit on your behalf. Since the edits are directly managed by these scripts, they can add tags and adjust the edit summary. This function is absent from WikiChatbot: it does not make any edits for the user, it only shows them messages. All edits have to be made manually by the user without assistance from the script (the documentation tells editors to mention in their edit summaries if they include output from the script in their edits). In this regard, the script is similar to Microsoft Copilot, which is an LLM directly integrated into the Edge browser to talk about the webpage one is currently visiting without making changes to it.
 * Another safeguard is that WikiChatbot keeps warning the user. Every time it is started, it shows the following message to the user:
 * Bot: How can I assist you?

(Please scrutinize all my responses before making changes to the article. See WP:LLM for more information.)
 * It also shows more specific warning messages for certain queries. For example, when asking for expansion suggestions, its response always starts with
 * Bot: (Please consult reliable sources to verify the following information) ...
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points, and the safeguards look pretty neat! Regarding the edit summary, I know that some helpers like ProveIt add default edit summaries when they're invoked (which can be edited by the user), even if they don't make the whole edit by themselves, so that could be something to look into! Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 09:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The comparison with Proveit is helpful, I'll look into it. One possibly relevant difference may be that the purpose of Proveit is to change wikitext in the edit area. When this text is changed, it automatically adds an edit summary remark. WikiChatbot is intended for interaction with the regular article view (the rendered HTML code) and does not make changes to the wikitext in the edit area. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding user groups, it would be possible to limit the script to autoconfirmed users. In that case, if the user is not autoconfirmed, they get an error message. I checked a few of its current users and they are all autoconfirmed so, on a practical level, this would make little to no difference. The hurdles to using this script are high since each user has to obtain their personal OpenAI API key, without which no responses from the LLM model can be obtained. So the script is unlikely to attract many inexperienced casual users. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely confused about some of the functions provided by this chatbot, such as Ask quiz question: Asks the reader a quiz question about the selected text. (how is this encyclopedic?) Also, functions such as Suggest expansion: Suggest ideas how the selected text could be expanded., or Write new article outline: Writes a general outline of the topic of this article. Ignores the content of the article and the selected text. appear to be the kind of generative use of LLMs that are usually frowned upon. While the documentation mentions that editors using the chatbot should take care of not adding hallucinations it can generate into the article, the fact that the chatbot is explicitly also intended for readers makes it even more worrying, as there would be no human verification of the answers it gives to the reader. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Tracking of removed content and/or users who added chatgpt/AI content?
Is there any desire to track which articles had AI-generated content removed from them, or who the offending users were? I recently did my first removal of AI content, in this edit. That content was added in this edit on 9 Dec 2023 by a new user User:NuclearDesignEngineer who apparently tried this on 4-5 other articles, got promptly reverted on many (but not all). Hasn't edited since. I'm not sure if I should complain, or just quietly revert, or what. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we do have a record of potential AI-using editors at WikiProject AI Cleanup/Possible AI-using editors, although it hasn't been updated in awhile. if they did it less than ~10 times, it's probably not worth logging though. quiet reversion is probably fine, assuming they don't continue. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

New editor adding a lot of ChatGPT
User:Davecorbray is a new editor adding a lot of AI-generated text to articles about 19th century British prime ministers. I happened to have one, Spencer Perceval, on my watchlist as I had done a lot of work on the article some years ago. I thought there was something odd about the additions and eventually went through each paragraph checking the text against the sources and deleting the paragraphs where the sources did not support the text. That turned out to be all of them. I only thought of ChatGPT at that stage and the editor admitted on their talk page to using it, although rather downplayed their use of it. I replied with what I see as the problems. As for the other articles - I have done a few spot checks and the additions seem likewise to be ChatGPT, with inappropriate "sources". I have never come across this before, and I wondered if someone with more experience could take a look at it. Southdevonian (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for signaling this! Yeah, adding false information and/or false references is just as much of a problem when it's done with ChatGPT (even more, as the person can do it at scale much easier). If they keep doing it after what you told them, best to formally give them something like uw-ai3, which looks like this:If they still don't stop after the warning, you can send them to ANI or something. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chaotic Enby So does that mean I can’t edit Wikipedia? Not to be rude, but I think that you’re taking this a step up. I only used ChatGPT fairly recently (around a week from now). I only used it to help me with writing and researching rather than using it to spread falsehoods. I followed up on @Southdevonian your suggestion that ChatGPT can be tricky to use in terms of research and writing, as a machine it could be inconsistent and inaccurate sometimes to some degree. If any information or sources was false or misleading, I accept the responsibility for it and I apologise sincerely. Also I would remove information that is indeed irrelevant and not use further AI-generated content. But you should know that all the edits I have made since last month are all written by me and they have been fact-checked earlier beforehand, I only used ChatGPT only to help me out with paraphrasing long sentences and conducting certain research to accurately confirm some sources (which I accepted above as being incorrect and wrong). It isn’t that simple undoing edits that are frustratingly hard for the reader to understand and yes it is also similarly frustrating sometimes to turn up in dead ends when doing research on these topics. So that’s why I used ChatGPT and I didn’t intentionally use it to make misleading statements or anything else. Again, I apologise for any grievances caused by my edits. Davecorbray (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are relying on ChatGPT's information for conducting certain research when you turn up in dead ends when doing research on these topics, and you didn't realize ChatGPT often gave you inaccurate or fully incorrect information, it's a mistake – but don't worry, we all make mistakes, and Southdevonian explained the situation to you. Now, you shouldn't do it, and write your Wikipedia edits in your own words without relying on information given by ChatGPT. That doesn't mean you can't edit Wikipedia, only that you shouldn't use ChatGPT for it. Not just "it's tricky so I should be careful", no, it spreads enough subtle falsehoods and fake references to basically be net zero information.However, if you continued doing it after it has been explained to you, then it would not be a mistake but actively disruptive, and that is why I mentioned ANI.Also, when you mention that your edits have been fact-checked earlier beforehand, was it with ChatGPT or by doing your own research and verifying inside the sources? ChatGPT is often known to make up sources that just don't exist, or to quote sources that don't say anything it claims. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chaotic Enby Thank you for your support and advice. Now I understand that the negative impact this has had the articles themselves and the need to fact-check any source that does not support the research. To answer your question “was it with ChatGPT or by doing your own research and verifying inside the sources”: yes, I do verify sources before using them in any form of reports, articles, essays or say summaries. But as I have noted in my previous statement, I only used ChatGPT about 2/1 weeks ago from now. That means that I was simply wasn’t using it before that time and again I only used it to either paraphrase or simplify sentences and words that might be unclear. It might have gotten quite mixed up in the end, I presume, but I don’t use ChatGPT in every one of my edits. Sources in this case, also similarly, have been inappropriately misused. For instance, I have asked Chat for sources on Spencer Perceval’s tenure as Attorney General and it returned sources that I, mistakenly believed, were actual because of assurances of it’s accuracy. But now I know that was a false alarm. So I am indeed very wrong in this aspect of the situation. So I would discontinue to use any ChatGPT for that matter then. Davecorbray (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just realised that it is probably a case of sockpuppetry/block evasion as well User:Danjwilkie. Southdevonian (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding a category to users warned with the user templates
Hi all,

I was looking at the list of people supected of using AI, and it seems a bit outdated. Couldn't we just make the AI warning templates automatically add the users to a category? Acebulf (talk &#124; contribs)  01:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'll go ahead and do it in a few days if no one else does so or objects. Queen of Hearts &thinsp;talk 01:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Queen of Hearts &thinsp;talk 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this search can be used to find pre-tracking-cat subst'd instances of the warning templates (229 results).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Help with AI-written articles
An editor admitted to using AI to write two aircraft articles; Caproni Ca.104 and Focke-Wulf W 4, and has agreed to stop using AI to write more. Both articles have been determined to be largely inaccurate, but I am unsure about the proper course of action for dealing with such cases. My first instinct is to nominate them for CSD G3, but given the unfamiliar circumstances, I thought I'd bring it up here first. - ZLEA  T \ C 00:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI: While investigating the CSD tag on Caproni Ca.104 image as a copyvio (and subsequently deleting it), I looked at the Caproni Ca.104 article which was tagged as a possible hoax. Because of the discussion on the talk page and the discussion at User talk:Sir MemeGod, I tagged and deleted the article as a G3 hoax. If the Focke-Wulf W 4 article has some valid text, I suggest deleting everything else and leaving what can be salvaged. Otherwise, ZLEA, I agree that the article should be tagged G3 as a AI-generated hoax. Afterwards it can be created from scratch using valid sources. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. - ZLEA  T \ C 02:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah, such things strike me as clearly a case for WP:TNT, whatever path you take to that conclusion - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)