Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Expand G15 to include content where the LLM usage has been disclosed already: Reply
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 16:10, 21 April 2026 | ||
| Line 554: | Line 554: | ||
An example of where this might apply is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model specification (artificial intelligence)|this AfD discussion]], which contains several articles that are obviously in violation of the present LLM policies and have an LLM disclosure in their initial edit summaries. [[User:GrinningIodize|GrinningIodize]] ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 12:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
An example of where this might apply is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model specification (artificial intelligence)|this AfD discussion]], which contains several articles that are obviously in violation of the present LLM policies and have an LLM disclosure in their initial edit summaries. [[User:GrinningIodize|GrinningIodize]] ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 12:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
:Does that meet the requirements at the top of [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]]? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
:Does that meet the requirements at the top of [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]]? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, I believe so. |
|||
::The process is ''objective'' (only pages which have a disclosure of LLM usage in the initial edit), ''uncontestable'' (there are very few gray areas), ''frequent'' because we already have several examples of pages that would be deleted under these rules, and ''nonredundant'' (if I thought that another rule applied better here, I would have already used it). [[User:GrinningIodize|GrinningIodize]] ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 16:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
:In the past, some proposals to expand G15 (such as adding oaicite markers) were rejected on the grounds that, while they were indisputably evidence of AI, they were not evidence of ''unreviewed'' AI, and the editor could have simply overlooked them. As [[WP:NEWLLM]] has since been enacted, and AI-generated articles are now prohibited in general, it makes sense to reconsider these as a collection (including, but not limited to, the explicit disclosure you mentioned above). [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 14:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
:In the past, some proposals to expand G15 (such as adding oaicite markers) were rejected on the grounds that, while they were indisputably evidence of AI, they were not evidence of ''unreviewed'' AI, and the editor could have simply overlooked them. As [[WP:NEWLLM]] has since been enacted, and AI-generated articles are now prohibited in general, it makes sense to reconsider these as a collection (including, but not limited to, the explicit disclosure you mentioned above). [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 14:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::Possibly, if the article was created after NEWLLM was enacted ''and'' the current revision of the article is sufficiently problematic that it needs major work (we don't want to penalise the good, human work that has resulted in a good article just because it was initially created by AI). However, I'm not sure that leaves anything that doesn't already meet G15? |
::Possibly, if the article was created after NEWLLM was enacted ''and'' the current revision of the article is sufficiently problematic that it needs major work (we don't want to penalise the good, human work that has resulted in a good article just because it was initially created by AI). However, I'm not sure that leaves anything that doesn't already meet G15? |
||
