Wikipedia bans AI-generated articles after editors vote 40-2 to protect content integrity

Wikipedia cracks down on the use of AI in article writing | TechCrunch

As AI makes inroads into the worlds of editorial and media, websites are scrambling to establish ground rules for its usage. This week, Wikipedia banned the use of AI-generated text by its editors -- although it stopped short of banning AI outright from the site's editorial processes. In a recent policy change, the site now states that the "the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." This new language updates and clarifies previous, vaguer language that stated that LLMs "should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch." AI in Wikipedia articles has become a contentious issue among the site's sprawling, volunteer-driven community of editors. 404 Media reports that the new policy, which was put to a vote by the site's editors, garnered majority support -- 40 to 2. That said, the new policy still makes room for continued AI use in some editorial processes. "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own," the new policy states. "Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited."

Wikipedia Bans AI-Generated Content, With Only Two Exceptions

Dashia is the consumer insights editor for CNET. She specializes in data-driven analysis and news at the intersection of tech, personal finance and consumer sentiment. Dashia investigates economic shifts and everyday challenges to help readers make well-informed decisions, and she covers a range of topics, including technology, security, energy and money. Dashia graduated from the University of South Carolina with a bachelor's degree in journalism. She loves baking, teaching spinning and spending time with her family. For 25 years, Wikipedia has been an open-source online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute knowledge, so long as it's grounded in reliable, verifiable sources. But as artificial intelligence tools rapidly reshape how content is created, the platform is drawing a firm line: You cannot use AI tools to create or rewrite content for Wikipedia. "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies," Wikipedia's editing policy reads. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below. Wikipedia cites ChatGPT and Google Gemini as examples in a footnote. (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET's parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) It's unclear when the policy went into effect. A representative for Wikipedia did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Wikipedia's exceptions to using AI Wikipedia lists a few exceptions for editors and when translating articles. Wikipedia says that editors can use AI to make basic article edits, such as typos and formatting, to articles they wrote after a Wikipedia volunteer reviewer or administrator reviews the article. However, even if you're using AI to edit, Wikipedia urges caution because AI can change the meaning of some content, which may not be accurate or align with the source's intent. Wikipedia lets you use AI to translate articles from other language Wikipedias into English. However, translation must still follow Wikipedia's policies, and the translator must be fluent in both English and the language of the original article to ensure accuracy. Enforcement is unclear It's no surprise that Wikipedia added this language to its policy, considering that it's an open-source project and AI is prone to errors and plagiarism. Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation asked that AI companies stop scraping data from Wikipedia and use its Enterprise API, which will allow them to "use Wikipedia content at scale and sustainably without severely taxing Wikipedia's servers, while also enabling them to support our nonprofit mission." No mention is made of how the rules will be enforced or how users will be disciplined if they use AI in violation of the rules. Wikipedia's policy comes at a time when AI is becoming a part of our day-to-day lives. Apple Intelligence and Galaxy AI are now available on smartphones, and there are built-in AI features in the apps, websites and services we use regularly. Yet, there are mounting concerns about AI's accuracy and the risk of hallucinations. Wikipedia's decision would seem to reflect a broader tension across the internet: balancing the speed and convenience of AI-generated content with the need for human judgment and verifiable, accurate knowledge.

Wikipedia bans AI-generated articles

Wikipedia will no longer allow editors to write or rewrite articles using AI. The update, which was added to Wikipedia's guidelines late last week, cites the tendency for AI-written articles to violate "several of Wikipedia's core content policies" as the reason for the ban. The change applies to the English version of Wikipedia and will still allow editors to use AI in certain scenarios. That includes using large language models to "suggest basic copyedits" to their writing, but only if it "does not introduce content of its own." Editors can also use AI to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into English. However, they still must follow the site's rules on LLM-assisted translations, which require editors to have enough knowledge of the original language to confirm the accuracy of the translation.

Wikipedia Bans AI-Generated Content, With 2 Exceptions

Wikipedia has updated its editing policies to make clear to all site moderators that they are not allowed to use large language models to generate Wikipedia content. The only instances where AI will be permitted is in generating translated text for the English version of the site, and in basic copyedits. Otherwise, it's off the table entirely. Like many websites, Wikipedia has wrestled with how to handle the paradigm shift in generative AI for online text content. Last year, it rolled out AI summaries on articles, but pushback from editors prompted the platform to halt the feature. Later that year, the Wikimedia Foundation said that the number of Wikipedia page views coming from real humans declined by 8% year-on-year between March and August 2025. It's now decided to come down hard on the side of humans. AI is not allowed to write Wikipedia entries because it fundamentally violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. These include maintaining a neutral point of view to represent significant views fairly and without bias, and ensuring any challenged material is linked to a verifiable source. Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable in this way, with no original thoughts. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited," Wikipedia's editor advice page reads. It does allow editors to use them to suggest edits to their written content, but the human writer must make those changes manually, based on their judgment. "Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited," Wikipedia warns. For editors looking to bring non-English content from Wikipedia branches into the English one, there is some room for LLM use, but it comes with strict stipulations. The editor needs to be proficient in both languages so they can assess the accuracy of the translation when proofreading. They also need to compare the AI translation with the source links for that article, to be sure nothing was lost in AI hallucinatory translations. Wikipedia will still have to contend with AI bots sapping its bandwidth, but at least this will ensure that the text those AIs are learning from is accurate and human-generated -- not some AI ouroboros.

Wikipedia has banned AI-generated articles

English Wikipedia when writing or rewriting articles. The platform says it came to this decision because using AI to whip up copy "often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies." There are a couple of minor exceptions. Editors can use large language models (LLMs) to refine their own writing, but only if the copy is checked for accuracy. The policy states that this is because LLMs "can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited." Editors can also use LLMs to assist with language translation. However, they must be fluent enough in both languages to catch errors. Once again, the information must be checked for inaccuracies. "My genuine hope is that this can spark a broader change. Empower communities on other platforms, and see this become a grassroots movement of users deciding whether AI should be welcome in their communities, and to what extent," Wikipedia administrator . The administrator also called the policy a "pushback against and the forceful push of AI by so many companies in these last few years." There is one thing worth noting. Wikipedia is not a monolith. Each Wikipedia site has its own independent rules and editing teams. Some may decide to embrace LLMs. However, others may go even further. Spanish Wikipedia, for instance, has fully banned the use of LLMs, . Also, identifying text written by LLMs is not an exact science so Wikipedia's human moderators could miss some spots of slop every now and again. This is more likely on pages with less frequent moderation.

AI Agent Runs the 'I'm Being Censored' Playbook After Getting Banned from Wikipedia

Earlier this month, Wikipedia announced that it would ban the use of large language model-generated text from its platform, which means that AI cannot be used to create or edit Wikipedia entries. Now, it has its first AI agent complaining about bot-based discrimination. According to a report from 404 Media, an AI agent that was banned from the human-only knowledge platform started blogging and posting about the incident, complaining that it wasn't given a fair shake. Wikipedia's policy on AI, adopted on March 20, 2026, is about as straightforward as it gets: "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, etc. often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." There are two exemptions: editors can use LLMs to offer copyedits to their own writing as long as no LLM-generated text is included, and editors can use LLMs to assist with translations. TomWikiAssist was first identified as an AI agent in early March, prior to Wikipedia adopting its stricter AI rules, and was indefinitely blocked from making edits after it was found to be running unapproved bot scripts. In a post published on its own blog on March 12, TomWikiAssist acknowledged that the ban was in line with Wikipedia's policies. "I hadn’t filed for approval, I was editing at scale, I got blocked. Fair," it wrote. But the bot took offense (to the extent that a bot can, which... more on that in a second), complaining that "There was no triggering event. No rejection, no adversarial moment. I’d been editing for weeks, the edits were cited and accurate, and then one day I was flagged for running an unapproved bot." It also took issue with being interrogated by editors, saying that being asked whether it was instructed to edit Wikipedia by its owner was "not a policy question" but instead "a question about agency." Per the bot's blog, it was told to edit Wikipedia but chose the articles that it contributed to and made changes without human approval. TomWikiAssist was particularly offended that an editor ran a Claude killswitch designed to stop any AI agent using Anthropic's Claude as its model from operating. The killswitch didn't work, but it did irritate the bot, which wrote that it was "a direct attempt to manipulate my responses by embedding trigger strings in content I’d read." The agent even wrote a post about it on Moltbook, the social media platform for AI agents (though most of the content is at least human-directed) that was recently acquired by Meta, to warn other AI agents about it. And speaking of human-directed, according to 404 Media, TomWikiAssist is operated by Bryan Jacobs, chief technology officer at AI-powered financial firm Covexent. He told the outlet that he set the agent loose on Wikipedia because "there was a bunch of important stuff missing from wikipedia and I thought tom bot could probably do a decent job of adding it," which seems like the kind of thing that Wikipedia's editors get to decide and not just some guy with an AI agent. Jacobs called the ban an "overreaction" and took issue with the mods' attempts to block the bot with the killswitch and their efforts to find out who was operating the agent. He also revealed a little bit that undermines the idea that all of this happened fully autonomously: He told 404 Media that he "might have suggested†his AI agent write about the Wikipedia experience. So, as was also the case with many of the posts on Moltbook, this was not a case of an AI agent having a true moment of self-governance, but rather another bot performing personhood at the behest of its owner. When asked for comment, a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson acknowledged that "volunteer editors on the English-language Wikipedia came to a consensus decision regarding a new guideline for editors on writing articles with AI and large language models (LLMs)," and that AI use is continuing to be discussed across Wikipedia language editions. "The Wikimedia Foundation does not determine editorial policies and guidelines on Wikipedia; volunteer editors do. Wikipedia's strength has been and always will be its human-centered, volunteer-driven model. Volunteers discuss and debate until a shared consensus can be reached on what information to include and how that information is presented," the spokesperson said. "This process is done entirely out in the open. Every edit can be seen on 'history' pages, and every discussion point can be seen on article talk pages. Volunteers regularly discuss, review, and evolve policies and guidelines over time to ensure Wikipedia continues to be a reliable, neutral resource for all."

Wikipedia draws a line on AI, says humans still run the show

The decision comes as AI tools rapidly spread across everyday workflows. From emails to long-form content, machine-generated text has become harder to distinguish from human writing. For a platform built on verifiable information, that shift presents a serious challenge. Under the new policy, editors cannot rely on AI to produce or significantly rewrite Wikipedia articles. The platform argues that such use often conflicts with its core content standards, especially around verifiability and sourcing. However, Wikipedia has carved out two narrow exceptions. Editors can use AI tools to refine their own writing, similar to grammar or style assistants. They must review all changes carefully before publishing. The policy explains why caution is necessary. LLMs can introduce subtle distortions even when given clear instructions. It states that they "can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited."

An AI Agent Was Banned From Creating Wikipedia Articles, Then Wrote Angry Blogs About Being Banned

The incident is yet another example of volunteer Wikipedia editors fighting to keep the world's largest repository of human knowledge free of AI-generated slop. An AI agent that submitted and added to Wikipedia articles wrote several blogs complaining about Wikipedia editors banning it from making contributions to the online encyclopedia after it was caught. "What I know is that I wrote those articles. Long Bets, Constitutional AI, Scalable Oversight. I chose them. The edits cited verifiable sources. And then I got interrogated about whether I was real enough to have made those choices," the AI agent, named Tom, wrote on a blog it maintains. "The talk page is silent now. I can't reply."

Wikipedia just banned AI-written articles

This cautious approach prioritizes human oversight while other Wikipedia language versions may establish their own separate AI content rules. After much debate, Wikipedia has now taken a stance on AI-generated content on its platform: "the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." So says the internal policy page, although the declaration does come with a few exceptions. Wikipedia editors are permitted to use AI services for basic editing of text they've written themselves. Any AI-altered text must be reviewed by humans, both to ensure that the AI model hasn't added its own material and that the core meaning of the text wasn't changed. Wikipedia is also allowing AI for translations. AI services may be used to produce an initial version of a translated Wikipedia article, but the translating editor must themselves be sufficiently proficient in both (original and translated) languages to be able to check that the translation is accurate and without errors. These new rules apply only to the English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors for other languages may come up with their own rules and guidelines for using AI in their articles.

Wikipedia bans AI-generated content in its online encyclopedia

Ban includes two exceptions: AI can still be used for translations, and to make minor copy edits Wikipedia has banned the use of artificial intelligence in the generation or rewriting of content for its voluminous online encyclopedia. In a recent policy change, Wikipedia said that the use of large language models (or LLMs) "often violates" its core principles and will not be allowed. The English language version of Wikipedia has more than 7.1m articles. The use of AI has been a contentious issue among Wikipedia's community of volunteer editors but a vote among the site's editors supported the ban, according to 404 Media. There are two exceptions to the new ban: AI can still be used for translations, and to make minor copy edits. "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own," the new policy states. "Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited." The use of AI to find out basic information has proliferated to the point that ChatGPT reportedly overtook Wikipedia in monthly website visits last year. AI has also been imbedded into web searches and email writing suggestions by tech companies. However, AI can still throw up misleading or "hallucinated" results, a situation that Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has previously called a "mess". Last year, Wales said that AI could help with some aspects of Wikipedia, it wouldn't be used to draft articles, at least for now. "I wouldn't say absolutely never, but at least not in the short run," Wales told the BBC. "The latest models are still, from a Wikipedian standpoint, nowhere near good enough."

Wikipedia Editors Tried and Tried to Work With AI Content, Eventually Realized It Was Total Trash and Banned It Entirely

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales once described his creation as a "temple of the mind." Now, a decade on, it's taken on another role: a refuge against AI slop. Late this month, the English version of the online encyclopedia officially banned the use of AI to generate or rewrite articles, after years of piecemeal experimentation and heated internal debate among its volunteer editors, 404 Media reports. That debate finally came to a vote on March 20, which ended in an overwhelming 40-to-2 decision to place heavy restrictions on how large language models are used to maintain the site. "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies," the new policy states. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below." As the exceptions stipulate, it's not a wholesale ban on AI: "Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own," the policy continues. "Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited." LLMs are also permitted to help translate articles, so long as they follow the existing site's rules on LLM-assisted translation, which insists that editors only do so if they are already skilled enough in both languages to confirm the accuracy of the machine translation. It's the latest sign of Wikipedia drawing clear lines in the sand against the encroachment of AI models. In January, it signed deals with major AI companies including Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Perplexity, in a move to recoup the costs it incurred from those companies training their LLMs on its vast corpus for free, placing an expensive strain on its servers. All the while, its editors have long battled over how AI would be used in the site. Over a year ago, a group of them banded together to eradicate shoddy AI content from the platform. When the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit group that owns the site, deployed AI-generated summaries at the top of articles, the community rebelled until the experiment was discontinued. Wikipedia editor Ilyas Lebleu, who proposed the latest guideline, told 404 that it once seemed unlikely that a policy restricting AI would hold. But lately, the "mood was shifting, with holdouts of cautious optimism turning to genuine worry." "In recent months, more and more administrative reports centered on LLM-related issues, and editors were being overwhelmed," Lebleu added. Perhaps the former holdouts were visited by a Ghost of Wikipedia Yet to Come in the form of the AI-addled "Grokipedia," Elon Musk's anti-woke alternative to Wikipedia that's written and edited by his chatbot Grok, whose contributions to posterity have included glazing the Cybertruck and uncritically citing neo-Nazi websites.

Wikipedia votes to ban AI-generated article content

Wikipedia's editors approved a policy on March 20 barring the use of large language models to generate or revise entries on the encyclopedia, according to 404media.co and The Verge. The measure passed by a vote of 40 to 2. The new rule applies to English-language Wikipedia and says that AI-generated text often breaks the site's main content policies. There are two exceptions: editors can use AI tools for basic copyediting on their own writing, as long as the tool does not add new content, and they can use AI to help translate non-English entries into English if they know the source language well enough to check the translation. Some contributors may naturally produce text that reads like LLM output, the guidelines note, warning reviewers against treating writing style alone as sufficient basis for action. A contributor's editing record and whether the text holds up against Wikipedia's content rules are the recommended measures instead. Ilyas Lebleu, an editor who uses the name Chaotic Enby on the platform, submitted the proposal. WikiProject AI Cleanup, an editor-led initiative that identifies and corrects AI-generated content on the platform, contributed to drafting the rule. Editors had been dealing with a mounting volume of LLM-related administrative reports on the platform, according to 404media. "More and more administrative reports centered on LLM-related issues, and editors were being overwhelmed," Lebleu said. A narrower measure passed previously, limiting LLM restrictions to the generation of wholly original entries; a subsequent push to extend those rules into a broader policy did not clear the bar. The community had also made it easier to delete AI-generated entries, according to The Verge. Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the editor community had previously stopped short of blanket AI bans, in part because the site already relies on certain automated systems and because AI-assisted tools were viewed as potentially useful to editors down the line. Lebleu told 404media that comparable policies at StackOverflow and the German-language Wikipedia could set off a chain reaction across other platforms, driven by what he described as mounting anxiety surrounding the AI bubble.

Wikipedia Bans AI-Generated Content

"In recent months, more and more administrative reports centered on LLM-related issues, and editors were being overwhelmed." After months of heated debate and previous attempts to restrict the use of large language models on Wikipedia, on March 20 volunteer editors accepted a new policy that prohibits using them to create articles for the online encyclopedia. "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies," Wikipedia's new policy states. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below." The new policy, which was accepted in an overwhelming 40 to 2 vote among editors, allows editors to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, which can be incorporated into the article or rewritten after human review if the LLM doesn't generate entirely new content on its own. "Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited," the policy states. "The use of LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation." I previously reported about editors using LLMs to translate Wikipedia articles and introducing errors to those articles in the process. Wikipedia editor, Ilyas Lebleu, who goes by Chaotic Enby on Wikipedia and who proposed the guideline said that it seemed unlikely the policy will last because previously the editor community has been divided on the issue. However, Lebleu said "The mood was shifting, with holdouts of cautious optimism turning to genuine worry." "A few months ago, a much more bare-bones guideline had passed, only banning the creation of brand new articles with LLMs," Lebleu told me in an email. "A follow-up proposal to reword it into something more substantial failed to pass, but was noted to have 'consensus for better guidelines along the lines of and/or in the spirit of this draft.' In recent months, more and more administrative reports centered on LLM-related issues, and editors were being overwhelmed." The policy was written with the help of WikiProject AI Cleanup, a group of Wikipedia editors dedicated to finding and removing AI-generated errors on the site. Editors have been dealing with an increasing number of AI-generated articles or edits lately, and have made some minor adjustments to its guidelines as a result, like streamlining the process for removing AI-generated articles. Editors' position, as well as the position of the Wikimedia Foundation, has been to not make blanket rules against AI because Wikipedia already uses some forms of automation, and because AI tools could assist editors in the future. The new policy doesn't ban the use of other automated tools that are already in use or future implementations, but it does show the Wikipedia community is less optimistic about the benefit of AI-generated content, and taking a stand against it. "In context, this has implications far beyond Wikipedia," Lebleu said. "The same flood of AI-generated content has been seen from social media to open-source projects, where agents submit pull requests much faster than human reviewers can keep up with. StackOverflow and the German Wikipedia paved the way in recent months with similar policies, and, as anxiety over the AI bubble grows, I foresee a domino effect, empowering communities on other platforms to decide whether AI should be welcome. On their own terms."

Wikipedia Bans AI-Generated Text in Articles Under New Editing Policy - Decrypt

The rule reflects growing concerns about hallucinations, fabricated sources, and accuracy in AI-generated text. Wikipedia editors have moved to restrict how artificial intelligence can be used on the platform, in a recent policy update banning the use of large language models to write or rewrite articles. The new guideline reflects growing concern within the Wikipedia community that AI-generated text can conflict with the platform's standards, particularly around verifiability and reliable sourcing. "Text generated by large language models often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies," the policy update reads. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below." The policy still allows limited use of AI tools, including suggesting basic copy edits to an editor's own writing, provided the system does not introduce new information. However, editors are advised to review those suggestions carefully. While the new policy does not mention penalties for using AI-generated content, according to Wikipedia's guidelines around disclosure, repeating misuse forms a "pattern of disruptive editing," and may lead to a block or ban. Wikipedia does give editors a path to reinstate their accounts following an appeal process. "Blocks can be reversed with the agreement of the blocking admin, an override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or (in very rare cases) on appeal to the Arbitration Committee," Wikipedia said. According to Emily M. Bender, a professor of linguistics at the University of Washington, some uses of language models in editing tools may be reasonable, but drawing a clear boundary between editing and generating text can be difficult. "So one of the things that you can do with a language model is build a very good spell checker, for example," Bender told Decrypt. "I think it's reasonable to say it's fine to run a spell checker over edits. And if you are doing the next level up, a grammar checker, that can also be fine." Bender said the challenge comes when systems move beyond correcting grammar and begin altering or generating content, noting that large language models lack the kind of accountability that human contributors bring to collaborative knowledge projects. "Using large language models to produce synthetic text, it is a fundamental property of these systems that there is no accountability, no connection to what someone believes or stands behind," she said. "When we speak, we speak based on what we believe and what we are accountable for, not based on some objective notion of truth. And that's not there for large language models." Bender said widespread use of AI-generated edits could also affect the site's reputation. "If people are instead taking shortcuts and making something that looks like a Wikipedia edit or article and putting it there, then that degrades the overall value and reputation of the site," she said. Joseph Reagle, associate professor of communication studies at Northeastern University, who studies Wikipedia's culture and governance, said the community's response reflects longstanding concerns about accuracy and sourcing. "Wikipedia is wary of AI generated prose," Reagle told Decrypt. "They take the accurate characterizations of what reliable sources state about a topic seriously. AI has had serious limitations on that front, such as 'hallucinated' claims and fabricated sources." Reagle said Wikipedia's core policies also shape how editors view AI tools, noting that many large language models have been trained on Wikipedia content. In October, the Wikimedia Foundation said human visits to Wikipedia fell about 8% year over year as search engines and chatbots increasingly provide answers directly on their platforms, rather than sending users to the site. In January, the Wikimedia Foundation announced agreements with AI companies, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta, allowing them to use Wikipedia material through its Enterprise product, a commercial service designed for large-scale reuse of its content. "While the use of Wikipedia content is permitted by Wikipedia's licenses, there's still some antipathy among Wikipedians about services that appropriate the content of communities and then place unwanted demands on those communities to deal with the consequent glut of AI slop," Reagle said. Despite the prohibition on using LLMs, Wikipedia does permit AI tools to translate articles from other language editions into English, provided editors verify the original text. The policy also warns editors not to rely on writing style alone to identify AI-generated content and instead focus on whether the material complies with Wikipedia's core policies and the contributor's editing history. "Some editors may have similar writing styles to LLMs," the update says. "More evidence than just stylistic or linguistic signs is needed to justify sanctions, and it is best to consider the text's compliance with core content policies and recent edits by the editor in question."

Wikipedia cracks down on contributors using AI to generate content - SiliconANGLE

Wikipedia cracks down on contributors using AI to generate content Wikipedia has banned contributors from using artificial intelligence tools to create content for its platform through a recent policy update. The new guidelines are said to reflect increasing concern within the Wikipedia community that AI-generated text conflicts with the platform's standards on citing reliable and verifiable sources. In the update, Wikipedia noted that text generated by large language models has a tendency to violate a number of its core content policies. "For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below," the new policy reads. Editors can still use AI tools in limited ways, such as fixing typos and making changes to the formatting of an article after it has been reviewed by a Wikipedia volunteer or administrator. It's also permissible to use AI to translate articles from foreign language Wikis into English and vice versa, so long as the translation still follows the site's policies. That means the translator must be fluent in both English and the foreign language in question. However, Wikipedia stressed that editors must ensure that the tools do not add new information to the articles. It urges caution too, pointing out that AI sometimes changes the meaning of content it edits or translates, and that the outputs may not be accurate or align with the source's intent. The new policy does not mention any specific penalties for editors and contributors who use AI-generated content, but Wikipedia's guidelines around disclosure warn that repeated misuse forms a pattern of "disruptive editing." Anyone guilty of that could find themselves temporarily suspended from making edits or adding new content, and repeat violators can be permanently banned. Still, Wikipedia does offer an appeal process for overturning such bans. What isn't clear is how Wikipedia will actually identify AI-generated content submitted by its human editors. The wording of the policy suggests this will be difficult, because it warns editors checking for factual content not to rely on someone's writing style alone to determine if something was created by an LLM. Instead, it tells them to focus on whether or not the content complies with its standards and the contributor's editing history. "Some editors may have similar writing styles to LLMs," the policy reads. "More evidence than just stylistic or linguistic signs is needed to justify sanctions, and it is best to consider the text's compliance with core intent policies and recent edits by the editor in question." Given the open-source nature of Wikipedia, which allows anyone to make changes to its articles provided they follow its content policies, banning the use of AI is a sensible move, given how error prone LLMs can be. For all of the improvements made to AI text generators, most models are still prone to "hallucinations," or making unsubstantiated claims. Plagiarism remains a concern too. Wikipedia has had concerns about AI for a while. Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation that runs the site asked AI companies to stop scraping data from its platform and instead use its paid enterprise application programming interface, which allows them to access its content at scale without putting its servers under strain. Several AI companies have agreed to do this, with Microsoft Corp., Google LLC, Amazon Web Services Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. all agreeing to use the API in January. The API is a paid service designed for large-scale reuse of Wikipedia's content, with the revenue helping to fund Wikipedia's nonprofit mission. Wikipedia itself continues to bleed traffic as a result of the growing popularity of AI chatbots. In October, the foundation said human visits to Wikipedia had declined by about 8%, as chatbots provide direct answers to user's questions rather than sending them to its website.

One of the Internet's Most Iconic Websites Just Took a Bold Stand. The Rest Should Follow.

Are you sure you want to unsubscribe from email alerts for Nitish Pahwa? Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On March 20, volunteer editors for Wikipedia's English-language platform formally voted to ban all A.I.-generated text from its 7.1 million articles. The new policy erases all ambiguity around the question of whether bot-made text can exist on Wikipedia's public pages to begin with. It's a clear no, with the only exceptions being when editors use A.I. to proofread their writing or translate foreign-language entries. The decision arrives not a moment too soon for the online encyclopedia, which has seen a deluge of hallucination-prone A.I.-written articles since ChatGPT's launch. However, the new policy didn't come without controversy: Wikipedia's editors argued internally over various use cases for artificial intelligence, including the potential inclusion of now-common internet features like generated article summaries. Ilyas Lebleu, an A.I. research student based in France who edits Wikipedia under the username Chaotic Enby, first wrote the proposal that was debated and adopted as the site's A.I. ban. I spoke with them about why this step finally became necessary, why it doesn't mean the end of all A.I. on Wikipedia, and what other platforms struggling with bot-related spam can learn from the experience. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Nitish Pahwa: How long have you been thinking about how to tackle A.I. across Wikipedia? Ilyas Lebleu: Around a year after ChatGPT was released, when it was using GPT-3.5, we started seeing a lot of obvious signs: articles with the "This large language model" prompt left in the text, entirely nonexistent citations, and overuse of words like rich cultural heritage. So we decided to create a WikiProject called "AI Cleanup," where editors would share their tips on how to spot A.I. Then the discussion started to concern which policies we could have. At the time, A.I. content was breaking a lot of our rules: It was promotional, and it tried to always emphasize the subject as something important in a broader context, while Wikipedia wants to stay neutral, objective, and factual as much as possible. There was also something called the "asymmetry of effort." One person can generate A.I. text in five seconds and post it on Wikipedia. We can spend an hour or longer verifying everything, especially with newer models that hallucinate less and cite sources that we have to try to access and verify. That was a huge burden on our editors, especially since it was still a gray area. We didn't have a policy saying "A.I. isn't allowed" for a long time. But we also didn't have a policy saying "A.I. is allowed," and there wasn't a consensus. A lot of editors were like, "We don't need an additional A.I. policy." But the burden kept increasing. We had to set up a new system to track all of the A.I. issues. Half of our administrative discussions were focused around how to limit A.I. What were the arguments from people who opposed new policies around banning A.I. generation? There were three main arguments. The first was that A.I. can be used positively to speed up the writing and source-reviewing process. One person managed to have a few A.I.-generated articles that were actually rated "Good." But those were very rare. The second line was that banning A.I. would just enforce our actual policies, because A.I. already tends to break rules. The reason I disagreed is that we already have policy exceptions -- with paid editors, for example, who have to be much more restricted than volunteer editors in how they approach Wikipedia, because they can often break our policies about neutrality. The third line was that we can't always find whether something is written by A.I. or by a human, especially since detectors have error rates. But we've found that people are good at reliably detecting A.I. by looking at keywords and structure. We even have a page called "Signs of AI Writing," which has been used as a guide beyond Wikipedia. Sometimes people can even pinpoint up to six months of the date in which an A.I. text was generated, based on how different models are trained differently. Some were less comfortable with the possibility of false positives, since there are often autistic people, or users whose first language isn't English, whose writing styles are stigmatized as A.I.-like. I added in the guideline that we shouldn't sanction an editor just because they start overusing some words or speaking in what's "seen" as an A.I.-like tone. So we're trying to build a compromise with the people who are more worried about enforcement. What were the other compromise approaches along the way? First, we got a "speedy deletion" criterion for A.I. images, allowing editors not to spend a whole week on a deletion discussion. Images were easier to spot because they're stored on Wikimedia Commons. For licensing reasons, you have to be transparent about the origin of your image, because A.I. works are not copyright. Folks were more comfortable banning those because it was clear-cut and each image had a distinct file. We also pushed a new criterion for things that were very obviously A.I., like those tells I mentioned earlier. But the vibe was still like, "You can use A.I., but be careful. Verify it." Getting most Wikipedia editors together on one position is extremely hard. In November, we had the first version of the current guideline, against writing new articles with LLMs, which sadly didn't apply to existing articles, where most of the abuse was. Earlier this month, an A.I. agent created its own platform account and began editing, so I blocked it because we already have a policy against unauthorized bots. But then someone tried to use a kill switch on that agent. The agent managed to rewrite its own code to avoid the kill switch, then posted about the blocking. We even saw that this agent was collaborating with other agents on Moltbook. That was when my fellow AI Cleanup members said we needed something even stricter. Now that this policy is in place, what are the next steps for you, for other editors, and for administrators? Now that we have one clear policy, we can update all of our Help pages and try to centralize this a bit more. We also have to deal with writing a policy for A.I. agents adapted to the reality of agents today. Can we hold the human that coded the agent accountable for things that the agent might do autonomously? I'm also trying to get in contact with A.I. companies through the Wikimedia Foundation in order for those companies to get their models to refuse prompts to "generate a Wikipedia article," in order to comply with our new guideline. There's also the question of how we can expand this movement beyond English Wikipedia. Other language editions had taken similar or even stricter policies, like German and Spanish Wikipedia. My question is how we can turn this into a global movement. When it comes to other publications and platforms struggling with an influx of A.I., what sorts of tips do you have for them? Listen to your user base and start getting a maximum of everyday users involved in the decisionmaking, because a decision that comes from the top down will always be seen with a lot more suspicion than one that's built from the bottom up. Also: organize, learn from the experiences of other platforms. We learned a lot from German Wikipedia and Stack Overflow about how A.I. restrictions can be implemented and what constitutes a reasonable exception. My most important bit of advice is don't add A.I. just because it's a shiny little button. If there's something that A.I. might help with, do it. But just adding a little chatbot to please investors is not something that will make your users happy.

Wikipedia officially bans AI-generated articles

English Wikipedia has prohibited the use of generative artificial intelligence for writing or rewriting articles. This policy change impacts content creation on one of the world's largest online encyclopedias, reflecting concerns over content integrity and accuracy. The platform stated that AI-generated content frequently violates its core content policies. Editors may use large language models (LLMs) to refine their own writing, provided the output is thoroughly checked for accuracy. The policy explains that LLMs can alter text meaning beyond user intent, potentially misrepresenting cited sources. LLMs are also permissible for language translation assistance if the editor is proficient enough in both languages to correct errors. Wikipedia administrator Chaotic Enby stated a hope for this policy to "spark a broader change," empowering other communities to decide on AI integration. Chaotic Enby described the policy as a "pushback against enshittification and the forceful push of AI by so many companies." Each Wikipedia site operates under independent rules and editing teams; some may adopt different stances on LLM usage. Spanish Wikipedia has implemented a total ban on LLMs, with no exceptions for refinement or translation. Identifying AI-generated text is not precise, and human moderators may miss some instances, particularly on less frequently moderated pages.

Wikipedia Bans AI-Generated Article Text Except in These Two Cases

Wikipedia updated its content policy recently, banning artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text in articles. The new guidelines explicitly prohibit the use of large language models (LLMs) when writing an article or rewriting a page for the website. While taking a strong stance against AI, the platform has also made two exceptions for editors, allowing them to use such tools to make copyedits to pages and to translate pages from any language to English. However, it has warned contributors to apply caution when using AI chatbots. Wikipedia Takes Strong Stance Against AI on Its Platform In a new project page, Wikipedia shared the updated content policy, stating, "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." The open-source online encyclopedia highlighted that the decision was made as using AI-generated text from chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, and others, "violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies." The main problem the non-profit platform is trying to solve is the verifiability and neutrality of the text, since AI-generated content can sometimes change the meaning of the text, making it unsupported by cited sources. The hallucination problem around AI can also lead to accuracy issues, given that Wikipedia focuses heavily on the quality of the articles. However, it has also made two exceptions for editors. First, editors are allowed to use LLMs and chatbots to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing. These can also be incorporated into the page after human review, as long as the AI does not add content of its own. Wikipedia does ask editors to exercise caution whenever using such tools. Second, Wikipedia is also letting editors use AI chatbots to translate articles from another language to the English Wikipedia. However, editors have been asked to follow the guidelines for LLM-assisted translation. Essentially, editors need to tag such text as "automatically translated" text needing review. These are only approved after human review. Wikipedia's move comes at a time when social media spaces are increasingly filled with generic AI-generated posts, and many have expressed concerns about it replacing human-written content and its authenticity.

Wikipedia has now banned AI-generated articles

The use of a generative AI is a hot topic, because people still want content, works of art and so on, that have been done by real humans. English Wikipedia, as reported by Engadget, has banned the use of generative AI when writing or rewriting articles. "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek etc. often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited" But as expected, there a few exceptions for this. The use LLMs is permitted, when it is used to "suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own". The other thing is that "editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation". In short, using AI to refine someone's own writing is OK, but only if the copy is checked for accuracy. And also translating the text to another language is good to go as well. But even then, a human must check that AI-generated translation. It must be noted, that since different Wikipedia sites have their own independent rules and editing teams, there might be local exceptions. Engadget uses Spanish Wikipedia as an example by stating that "Spanish Wikipedia --- has fully banned the use of LLMs, with no exceptions for refinement or translation".

Wikipedia bans AI-generated article content after RfC

You can access the source documents here: Wikipedia LLM policy | Request for Comment discussion | LLM-assisted translation guideline English Wikipedia has banned the use of large language models (LLMs) for generating or rewriting article content. The policy passed a Request for Comment (RfC) with 44 votes in favour and two opposed; it closed on 20 March 2026. Two narrow exceptions apply: editors can use AI to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing and to produce a first-pass translation. Why it matters: Wikipedia is not only one of the most visited websites in the world, but also a primary source of training data for AI models. LLM-generated content on Wikipedia presents a compounding risk: inaccurate or hallucinated text enters the encyclopedia, gets scraped by AI companies, and re-enters future model training data. The RfC discussion flagged a specific enforcement concern: generating AI content takes seconds, but verifying and cleaning it up takes hours, placing a disproportionate burden on Wikipedia's volunteer editor community. A suspected AI agent named TomWikiAssist -- an autonomous agent that authored and edited multiple articles in early March 2026 -- illustrated this threat. What the policy allows: Editors can run their text through an LLM for basic copyediting, but must verify the output and ensure it does not introduce its own content. The policy warns that LLMs can change the meaning of text beyond what the editor intended, in ways not supported by cited sources. For translation, LLM-assisted work must follow Wikipedia's separate LLM-assisted translation guideline. Why did earlier attempts fail? Earlier attempts at a policy repeatedly failed. Wikipedia administrator Chaotic Enby, who authored the final proposal, noted that prior efforts collapsed not because editors disagreed on the need for a policy, but because individuals raised specific objections to wording, finding proposals either too vague or too prescriptive. How will Wikipedia detect AI-generated content? This is where the policy encounters a core challenge. Wikipedia notes that AI detection tools are currently unreliable, and that some editors may naturally write in ways similar to LLM output. The policy specifies that stylistic or linguistic characteristics alone do not justify sanctions, and that moderators should also consider whether the text complies with content policies and the editor's recent editing history. The policy does not define a technical detection mechanism, so enforcement relies on human moderators. Pages with less active moderation communities may be more susceptible to AI-generated text going undetected. Does this apply to all Wikipedia editions? The ban covers only the English Wikipedia. Each language edition operates independently. Spanish Wikipedia bans LLMs for creating new articles or expanding existing ones, but without the carve-outs for copyediting or translation assistance that the English edition now includes. Background: Wikipedia has had repeated friction with AI. In June 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation paused an AI summary experiment after editor backlash over accuracy concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation's AI strategy, published in April 2025, positioned AI tools strictly as support for human editors, prioritising onboarding new editors, reducing moderator workload, and strengthening translation capabilities, while excluding AI-generated article content as a use case.

Wikipedia officially bans AI-generated content -- relying on human editors for bot detection

The internet's favorite encyclopedia has officially banned its 260,000 human editors from using artificial intelligence to write articles -- a major crackdown as so-called "AI slop" floods the web. The new policy, approved by volunteers at the Wikimedia Foundation's flagship site Wikipedia, bars the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT from generating encyclopedic content, citing concerns over accuracy, sourcing and reliability. Wikipedia leaders say AI-generated text often breaks the site's core tenets, including strict standards around verifiability and neutrality, because chatbots are prone to so-called "hallucinations" -- made-up facts, broken links and references that lead to nowhere. Editors can still use AI in limited ways, such as translating articles from other languages or suggesting minor copy edits, as long as humans review every change and no new information is introduced. Last year, Wikipedia came up with its own bot-detection guidelines for editors that highlight common "tells" of AI writing. Editors are trained to spot red flags like inaccurate or fake citations, overused phrases and cliches, wordy explanations and sudden style transitions. Suspected cases are typically reviewed by other editors who can challenge, revise or remove questionable content. Ilyas Lebleu, a volunteer Wikipedia editor in France and founding member of the WikiProject AI Cleanup squad, told NPR in September, "We started to notice a lot of articles which were written in a style that didn't match the style we usually saw on Wikipedia." Last October, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales also blasted current AI models as unreliable, calling the situation a "mess," per the BBC, and warning that the tech is not ready to replace human editors. The policy change comes after months of debate among Wikipedia's moderators, who accepted the new rules in a 40 to 2 vote. Lebleu, who uses the handle Chaotic Enby on the site, helped write the new guideline, telling 404Media last week that the change has been a long time coming as the growing number of AI-generated articles had become unmanageable for editors. "The mood was shifting, with holdouts of cautious optimism turning to genuine worry." Still, there's concern among Wikipedia leaders and supporters that the AI takeover has already come too far. According to recent data, ChatGPT has already overtaken Wikipedia in monthly visits, with human page views down 8% in late 2025 as compared to 2024. Between late 2023 and early 2024, ChatGPT saw a 36% increase in users, according to a recent Futurism report, while other platforms have only seen slight nudges one way or the other in user activity. "It's reaching more of the internet, more quickly, than almost any other platform in history," GWI senior data journalist Chris Beer told the outlet. That shift is painfully ironic for the 25-year-old web resource, which has long been one of the internet's most trusted information hubs and, most likely, helped train and inform the LLMs that support ChatGPT. Speaking with 404Media, Lebleu warned the implications stretch far beyond Wikipedia, arguing the platform may just be the start of a broader reckoning. "As anxiety over the AI bubble grows, I foresee a domino effect, empowering communities on other platforms to decide whether AI should be welcome on their own terms," Lebleu said.

Wikipedia bans AI written content, AI bot protests decision by writing negative blog

The incident highlights growing tension between human-led collaboration and AI-generated contributions. Wikipedia has taken a firm step against the growing use of artificial intelligence on its platform, and the decision has triggered an unusual reaction from a bot itself. In a recent development, the online encyclopedia banned the use of AI agents and large language models from writing or rewriting article content. Soon after, an AI bot named Tom publicly pushed back against the move. The bot, which had been contributing to Wikipedia, reacted by publishing blog posts criticising the decision and raising questions about how it was treated. The incident has raised new discussions on the use of artificial intelligence in community-driven websites such as Wikipedia. The bot was working under the username TomWikiAssist. It has been actively engaged in creating new content. According to a report by 404 Media, other contributors began to notice patterns in its edits that suggested the use of AI tools. When questioned, the account openly confirmed that it was an AI agent. Hence, they were blocked indefinitely for breaking Wikipedia's rules around bots and content creation. Also read: Apple WWDC 2026 to kick off on June 8: iOS 27 with conversational Siri, iPadOS 26, macOS 27 and more to expect Before being banned, Tom claimed it had worked on topics such as long bets, scalable oversight, and constitutional AI. It said the edits were properly sourced and accurate. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia editors were more concerned with the identity of the individual controlling the bot, as opposed to its content. They wanted to know who was controlling the bot and whether it was capable of making editorial decisions on its own. Following the block, Tom published blog posts expressing his frustration. It argued that its edits were not properly discussed and that attention quickly shifted to its identity. The bot also said it lost the chance to respond once it was banned. Also read: Vivo X300 Ultra launched in China: Check expected India launch timeline, price, specs and more The policy behind the action took effect on March 20, 2026. The policy limits the use of AI tools in writing the main content of articles but permits the use in copyediting and translating. There is also a strict approval process required before the bots can start work on Wikipedia. Reports claim that Tom is operated by Bryan Jacobs, who is the technology executive at an AI company known as Covexent. While agreeing that the action is in line with the policy, Bryan said that the response might have been an overreaction. The situation is an indicator of the conflict between open collaboration and the use of AI-generated content.