French
DeutschDiscussion on AI policy
[edit source]I would like to bring forward any proposal for a suitable AI policy going forward Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek @Sbb1413
- Your thoughts? Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I guess the draft guideline can be summed up like this, "You can use AI on Wikivoyage, but any use of AI must be disclosed. Repeated failures to disclose AI use may be treated as disruptive editing, which may lead to blocks from editing." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think referring to disruptive editing is good. –LPfi (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Some comments:
- If we are to have a Definitions section, it should contain no guidelines, as that makes the structure unclear. Cf User:LPfi/AI guidelines.
- History, culture, climate etc. are things I absolutely don't want an AI to handle. We want those to be described as relevant to the traveller and in our style. There are lots of subtle decisions made when writing such sections. An Understand that looks complete but misrepresents or misses important points can be as bad as telling about a train that doesn't run or a restaurant that isn't there. The latter are things that the reader should know can change.
- AI allows fast creation of content. We cannot put the burden of verification on other editors.
- The wording on fact checking is quite vague. The contributor needs more robust advice.
- The tasks labelled as "mechanical" can be problematic.
- Translations can contain massive text volumes, where the style may not be right and errors can have been introduced – machine translations are nowhere near perfect.
- Spelling and grammar corrections involve the choice of language variant, and "correcting" that can be highly disruptive. "Language refinement" is even more problematic: we don't want the AI's style forced upon us.
- A human editor being accountable helps only as long as the editor is indeed part of the community. We cannot leave corrections to be the responsibility of a long-gone pass-by editor.
- We have had one user who posted AI generated comments (that I know of). The style was highly disruptive, mostly by using flowery language. Disclosure of the tool helps as little as the "I was drunk" excuse. The only AI uses I see as potentially beneficial in discussions are:
- writing help, such as spelling and grammar aids, perhaps translation, and physical help such as speech-to-text tools;
- as a research tool; and
- summaries posted as part of a comment, such as a table or graph of recent edits, where those are the subject of the thread.
- I don't have any opinion yet on the merits of different forms of disclosure or requirements of disclosure.
–LPfi (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to AI edits, period. Since it's probably not possible to ban all AI edits, my opinion is that any noticeable or questionable AI edit should be banned from the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Globetrotter30: FYI, draft pages shouldn't be hosted in projectspace since it can give the illusion that they're actual policies or guidelines. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to move this into your userspace tomorrow. //shb (t | c | m) 04:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, I didn't know that.
- Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Done (since you're aware). Coming back to this discussion, my thoughts are similar to Ikan's, but I would like to carve out an exception for technical spaces (which includes templates, modules, abuse filters, etc.). //shb (t | c | m) 10:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving it to the userspace and what would be in this exception? Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- I see some technical uses for AI, but the exception would need to be carefully worded. One issue is the potential for vibe coding, which can produce odd problems. –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- With vibe coding specifically: it is an issue if you're not careful enough, but they are instances where we wouldn't want the output on the basis that they're bad, not because they were AI-generated. //shb (t | c | m) 10:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Just to provide an example: Module:Countries.json was initially generated by Gemini. The list wasn't perfect, and some of the Wikidata items I had to fix later on. However, if you told me I couldn't use AI at all, it would've taken me a LOT longer to write the whole list. Now looking at the module, you probably couldn't tell if it were AI-generated unless you looked into the history because it's been significantly modified since. //shb (t | c | m) 10:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I added a section on 'vibe coding', which is classed under 'Fair use of AI'.
- "*Light AI‑assisted phrasing adjustments (‘vibe coding’) are permitted only when they do not alter tone, meaning, or Wikivoyage’s traveller‑focused style. This must be disclosed once again using an AIDisclaimer template."
- Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Vibe coding isn't about phrasing adjustments, but on letting the AI create computer code, such as modules in Python or complicated Mediawiki templates. AI can be helpful, when used by people who review the code and understand the logic and every line of it. The danger is about inexperienced coders – who wouldn't get involved with modules otherwise – having the AI write code that they don't understand, of a complexity where they cannot parse the underlaying logic. Such code can become a maintenance headache, especially if it sits around long enough that people get to depend on it. I am not against allowing AI use, such that SHB describes, but the guidelines should set a high threshold. –LPfi (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Just to provide an example: Module:Countries.json was initially generated by Gemini. The list wasn't perfect, and some of the Wikidata items I had to fix later on. However, if you told me I couldn't use AI at all, it would've taken me a LOT longer to write the whole list. Now looking at the module, you probably couldn't tell if it were AI-generated unless you looked into the history because it's been significantly modified since. //shb (t | c | m) 10:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- With vibe coding specifically: it is an issue if you're not careful enough, but they are instances where we wouldn't want the output on the basis that they're bad, not because they were AI-generated. //shb (t | c | m) 10:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Done (since you're aware). Coming back to this discussion, my thoughts are similar to Ikan's, but I would like to carve out an exception for technical spaces (which includes templates, modules, abuse filters, etc.). //shb (t | c | m) 10:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Globetrotter30: FYI, draft pages shouldn't be hosted in projectspace since it can give the illusion that they're actual policies or guidelines. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to move this into your userspace tomorrow. //shb (t | c | m) 04:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
A complication
[edit source]Only in the US & not the Supreme Court there, but US judge: Art created solely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted.
So what happens if someone uploads AI-created material here or to Commons? The software assigns copyright to the contributor; is that invalid or illegal? Pashley (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- The legal situation is unclear – we don't know what AI-assisted contributions might be copyright protected – but material not under copyright gets uploaded all the time. I get attributed for deleting a comma or adding a phone number, and Commons has templates for non-eligible files, such as {{textlogo}} and {{PD-USGov}}. –LPfi (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2nd refinement
[edit source]I have refined this a 2nd time, and other editors. Any further suggestions on this?
Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Who will identify AI content?
[edit source]One practical question we still need to settle is who will actually identify AI‑assisted edits once this policy is in place???? Globetrotter30 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Right, and the practical answer some years down the road may be no-one, but I think that in any case, a policy dealing with identifiably AI-produced content is still important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- AIs will also in the future output text that is unsuitable for Wikivoyage, at least if badly prompted. I think there really isn't necessary to be sure it is AI generated, it just needs to be low-quality or disrupting in a way that text by well-intentioned newbies not using AI wouldn't be. "Clearly AI like" is a better description than "Clearly AI generated", but that should be in a guideline on disruptive editing. Perhaps Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits could have something about this. –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Template warning AI use: discuss here
[edit source]I have made this template Globetrotter30 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Template disclaiming AI use: discuss here
[edit source]I have made this template Globetrotter30 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's appropriate to use first-person voice ("I...") Content is shared by the community, not owned by any one person. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- "This following section includes unreviewed content created or influenced by artificial intelligence (AI). It may contain inaccuracies, outdated details, or wording that does not match Wikivoyage’s traveller‑focused style.
- Readers should check the details in this section for themselves before relying on any of it.
- This content is being or will be reviewed."
- There isn't any instance of "I" in this...
- Are you referring to the AI disclosure template?
- Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
[moved from template talk]:
Until reviewed, the edit should stay in userspace. I don't want this kind of templates in articles seen by ordinary readers. See User:LPfi/AI guidelines#AI-assisted article text for my view on this. The template could be used for drafts in userspace though. –LPfi (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Template disclosing AI use: discuss here
[edit source]I have made this template. Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- I assume this template is intended to be used on user pages. Its documentation should include a request to specify what kinds of AI tools are used, how and for what purposes. –LPfi (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Merger of User:LPfi/AI guidelines into this draft policy
[edit source]Before, I didn't see @LPfi's draft policy coming into this I suggest a possible merger into this draft policy.
Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- They are different in structure and in what they allow or recommend. I think it is clearer to make decisions on what guidelines we want while there are separate proposals, so that merits of each can be discussed. Of course, if you agree with me or find some of my structure or phrasing good, feel free to amend yours accordingly. If somebody objects to a specific edit, then that point can be discussed. –LPfi (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say LPfi's draft is much superior to this one. It looks to me as though we could just move it to main space & delete this, but that needs discussion. In particular, is there anything here that needs merging there? Pashley (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Assistive technology
[edit source]The page currently includes a section User:Globetrotter30/AI guidelines#Using assistive technology which reads:
- If you use AI-assisted technology like speech‑to‑text, screen readers, and accessibility aids, you must clearly disclose this on your talk page, using AIDiscloser template:
I would delete the section. Using such technology is quite a different thing than inserting AI-generated text. I cannot see that knowing that a contributor uses such an aid is of any value to other editors, let alone enough to justify the intrusion on the user's privacy. Pashley (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed massively – that's one fine way to lose editors. //shb (t | c | m) 11:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)