![]() | This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: The article contains exorbitant amounts of anti-AI info.(August 2025) |
Artificial intelligence is used in Wikimedia projects for the purpose of developing those projects. [1] [2] Human and bot interaction in Wikimedia projects is routine and iterative. [3]
Various articles on Wikipedia have been created entirely with or with the help of artificial intelligence. AI-generated content can be detrimental to Wikipedia when unreliable or containing fake citations.
To address the issue of low-quality AI-generated content, the Wikipedia community created in 2023 a WikiProject named AI Cleanup. On August 2025, Wikipedia adopted a policy that allowed editors to nominate suspected AI-generated articles for speedy deletion.
The Objective Revision Evaluation Service (ORES) project is an artificial intelligence service for grading the quality of Wikipedia edits. [4] [5] The Wikimedia Foundation presented the ORES project in November 2015. [6]
In August 2018, a company called Primer reported attempting to use artificial intelligence to create Wikipedia articles about women as a way to address gender bias on Wikipedia. [10] [11]
In 2022, the public release of ChatGPT inspired more experimentation with AI and writing Wikipedia articles. A debate was sparked about whether and to what extent such large language models are suitable for such purposes in light of their tendency to generate plausible-sounding misinformation, including fake references; to generate prose that is not encyclopedic in tone; and to reproduce biases. [12] [13] Since 2023, work has been done to draft Wikipedia policy on ChatGPT and similar large language models (LLMs), e.g. at times recommending that users who are unfamiliar with LLMs should avoid using them due to the aforementioned risks, as well as noting the potential for libel or copyright infringement. [13]
On December 6, 2022, a Wikipedia contributor named Pharos created the article "Artwork title" in his sandbox, declaring he used ChatGPT to experiment with it and would extensively modify it. Another editor tagged the article as "original research", arguing that the article was initially unsourced AI-generated content, and sourced afterwards, instead of being based on reliable sources from the outset. Another editor who experimented with this early version of ChatGPT said that ChatGPT's overview of the topic was decent, but that the citations were fabricated. [14] The Wiki Education Foundation reported that some experienced editors found AI to be useful in starting drafts or creating new articles. It said that ChatGPT “knows” what Wikipedia articles look like and can easily generate one that is written in the style of Wikipedia, but warned that ChatGPT had a tendency to use promotional language, among other issues. [15] Miguel García, a former Wikimedia member from Spain, said that when ChatGPT was originally launched, the number of AI-generated articles on the site peaked. He added that the rate of AI articles has now stabilized due to the community's efforts to combat it. He said that majority of the articles that have no sources are deleted instantly or are nominated for deletion. [16]
In 2023, the Wikipedia community created a WikiProject named AI Cleanup to assist in the removal of poor quality AI content from Wikipedia. On October 2024, a study by Princeton University revealed that about 5% of 3,000 newly created articles (created on August 2024) on English Wikipedia were created using AI. The study said that some of the AI articles were on innocuous topics and that AI had likely only been used to assist in writing. For some other articles, AI had been used to promote businesses or political interests. [17] [18]
On August 2025, the Wikipedia community created a policy that allowed users to nominate suspected AI-generated articles for speedy deletion. Editors usually recognize AI-generated articles because they use citations that are not related to the subject of the article or fabricated citations. The wording of articles is also used to recognize AI writings. For example, if an article uses language that reads like an LLM response to a user, such as "Here is your Wikipedia article on” or “Up to my last training update”, the article is typically tagged for speedy deletion. [17] [19] Other signs of AI use include excessive use of em dashes, overuse of the word "moreover", promotional material in articles that describes something as "breathtaking” and formatting issues like using curly quotation marks instead of straight versions. During the discussion on implementing the speedy deletion policy, one user, who is an article reviewer, said that he is “flooded non-stop with horrendous drafts” created using AI. Other users said that AI articles have a large amount of “lies and fake references” and that it takes a significant amount of time to fix the issues. [20] [21]
Ilyas Lebleu, founder of WikiProject AI Cleanup, said that they and their fellow editors noticed a pattern of unnatural writing that could be connected to ChatGPT. They added that AI is able to mass-produce content that sounds real while being completely fake, leading to the creation of hoax articles on Wikipedia that they were tasked to delete. [22] [23] Wikipedia created a guide on how to spot signs of AI-generated writing, titled "Signs of AI writing". [24]
In 2023, researchers discovered that ChatGPT frequently fabricates information and makes up fake articles for its users. At that time, a ban on AI was deemed "too harsh" by the community. [25] [26] AI was deliberately used to create various hoax articles on Wikipedia. For example, an in-depth 2,000-word article about an Ottoman fortress that never existed was found by Ilyas Lebleu and their team. [27] [28] Another example showed an user adding AI-generated misinformation to an article on Estola albosignata, a species of beetle. The paragraph seemed normal but referenced an unrelated article. [29]
AI has been used on Wikipedia to advocate for certain political viewpoints in articles covered by contentious topic guidelines. One instance showed a banned editor using AI to engage in edit wars and manipulate Albanian history-related articles. Other instances included users generating articles about political movements or weapons, but dedicating the majority of the content to a different subject, such as by pointedly referencing JD Vance or Volodymyr Zelensky. [30]
In 2025, Wikimedia started testing a "Simple Article Summaries" feature which would provide AI-generated summaries of Wikipedia articles, similar to Google Search's AI Overviews. The decision was met with immediate and harsh criticism from Wikipedia editors, who called the feature a "ghastly idea" and a "PR hype stunt." They criticized a perceived loss of trust in the site due to AI's tendency to hallucinate and questioned the necessity of the feature. [31] The negative criticism led Wikimedia to halt the rollout of Simple Article Summaries while hinting that they are still interested in how generative AI could be integrated into Wikipedia. [32]
In the development of the Google's Perspective API that identifies toxic comments in online forums, a dataset containing hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia talk page comments with human-labelled toxicity levels was used. [33] Subsets of the Wikipedia corpus are considered the largest well-curated data sets available for AI training. [34] [35]
A 2012 paper reported that more than 1,000 academic articles, including those using artificial intelligence, examine Wikipedia, reuse information from Wikipedia, use technical extensions linked to Wikipedia, or research communication about Wikipedia. [36] A 2017 paper described Wikipedia as the mother lode for human-generated text available for machine learning. [37]
A 2016 research project called "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" named Wikipedia as a key early project for understanding the interplay between artificial intelligence applications and human engagement. [38]
There is a concern about the lack of attribution to Wikipedia articles in large-language models like ChatGPT. [34] [39] While Wikipedia's licensing policy lets anyone use its texts, including in modified forms, it does have the condition that credit is given, implying that using its contents in answers by AI models without clarifying the sourcing may violate its terms of use. [34]
Detox was a project by Google, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, to research methods that could be used to address users posting unkind comments in Wikimedia community discussions. [40] Among other parts of the Detox project, the Wikimedia Foundation and Jigsaw collaborated to use artificial intelligence for basic research and to develop technical solutions[ example needed ] to address the problem. In October 2016 those organizations published "Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale" describing their findings. [41] [42] Various popular media outlets reported on the publication of this paper and described the social context of the research. [43] [44] [45]
In November 2023, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said that AI is not a reliable source and that he is not going to use ChatGPT to write Wikipedia articles. In July 2025, he proposed the use of LLMs to provide customized default feedback when drafts are rejected. [49]
Wikimedia Foundation product director Marshall Miller said that WikiProject AI Cleanup keeps the site's content neutral and reliable and that AI enables the creation of low-quality content. When interviewed by 404 Media, Ilyas Lebleu described speedy deletion as a "band-aid" for more serious instances of AI use, and said that the bigger problem of AI use will continue. They also said that some AI articles are discussed for one week before being deleted. [50]
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Attributions, however, remain a sticking point. Citations not only give credit but also help Wikipedia attract new editors and donors. " If our content is getting sucked into an LLM without attribution or links, that's a real problem for us in the short term,"
Some versions have expanded dramatically using machine translation through the work of bots or web robots generating articles by translating them automatically from the other Wikipedias, often the English Wikipedia. […] In any event, the English Wikipedia is different from the others because it clearly serves a global audience, while other versions serve more localized audience, even if the Portuguese, Spanish, and French Wikipedias also serves a public spread across different continents