Wikipedia is battling the flood of AI-generated content by empowering its volunteer editors with new tools and policies to identify and swiftly remove low-quality, misleading articles. As AI writing tools produce vast amounts of text filled with false information and fake citations, the Wikipedia community has responded with a proactive "immune system" approach, using a streamlined speedy deletion process for clearly AI-generated content that hasn’t been reviewed by its submitter. Editors are trained to spot red flags like overuse of em dashes, repetitive conjunctions like "moreover," promotional language, and improper formatting such as curly quotes. While these signs aren’t definitive proof of AI authorship, they help flag suspicious content for faster review. Beyond deletion, Wikipedia’s WikiProject AI Cleanup has compiled a detailed guide to help editors detect AI patterns. Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Foundation, though initially cautious about AI, now sees potential in using it responsibly—supporting editors with AI-powered tools that automate tasks like translation and vandalism detection. New initiatives like Edit Check and an upcoming Paste Check feature aim to guide contributors, ensure neutrality, and verify originality, reducing the burden of sifting through AI-generated slop. The foundation emphasizes collaboration with the community, focusing on using AI to enhance, not replace, human oversight and quality control.

Wikipedia is actively combating the surge of low-quality, AI-generated content flooding its pages, a growing challenge as generative AI tools produce vast amounts of text—often filled with inaccuracies, fabricated citations, and poor structure. In response, the volunteer editor community has strengthened its defenses, treating the situation like an immune system adapting to a new threat, according to Marshall Miller, product director at the Wikimedia Foundation. One key strategy is the expanded use of “speedy deletion” for articles clearly created by AI and not properly reviewed by their submitter. Traditionally, flagged articles enter a seven-day discussion before removal, but under the new rule, administrators can bypass this process if they identify three key red flags: lack of original research, absence of citations, and a writing style typical of AI—such as overuse of em dashes, excessive use of formal conjunctions like “moreover,” or promotional language like “breathtaking” or “revolutionary.” Wikipedia editors are also relying on the WikiProject AI Cleanup, a collaborative effort to identify patterns in AI-generated text. This includes not just phrasing but formatting quirks like curly quotation marks and apostrophes instead of straight ones—common in outputs from chatbots. However, the community cautions that these traits alone aren’t enough to justify deletion. The policy is meant to be applied with care, ensuring that legitimate contributions aren’t wrongly removed. The issue isn’t new. In June, the Wikimedia Foundation paused an experiment that placed AI-generated summaries at the top of articles after facing strong pushback from editors who feared it would compromise reliability. While the foundation remains cautious, it acknowledges AI’s dual nature: it enables mass production of low-quality content but can also assist editors in meaningful ways. AI is already used to detect vandalism and flag suspicious edits. The foundation’s broader AI strategy focuses on empowering volunteers by automating repetitive tasks, improving translation, and supporting better writing. Tools like Edit Check are being developed to guide new contributors. It can prompt users to add citations when writing long passages without sources and check for neutral tone. A future “Paste Check” feature will ask users whether they’ve copied large blocks of text, with some community members suggesting the tool could even ask contributors to disclose how much of their content was AI-generated. Ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation emphasizes collaboration with its volunteer community. “We’re following along with what they do and what they find productive,” Miller says. The goal is not to ban AI, but to use it responsibly—helping editors work smarter, not replacing their judgment. As the flood of AI slop continues, Wikipedia’s response remains a dynamic blend of human vigilance and intelligent tooling.