thanks for the relevant excerpt! One small correction: most of the AI sentences had valid and relevant cited sources, but the statements were not correct.
"A total of 178 out of the 3,078 articles came back as flagged for AI ... About half of our staff spent a month during summer 2025 painstakingly reviewing the text from these 178 articles....
Far more insidious, however, was something else we discovered: More than two-thirds of these articles failed verification. That means the article contained a plausible-sounding sentence, cited to a real, relevant-sounding source. But when you read the source it’s cited to, the information on Wikipedia does not exist in that specific source."
4
Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025 | Spyke
Interesting numbers for people who dont wanna read :
thanks for the relevant excerpt! One small correction: most of the AI sentences had valid and relevant cited sources, but the statements were not correct.
From the article:
"A total of 178 out of the 3,078 articles came back as flagged for AI ... About half of our staff spent a month during summer 2025 painstakingly reviewing the text from these 178 articles....
Far more insidious, however, was something else we discovered: More than two-thirds of these articles failed verification. That means the article contained a plausible-sounding sentence, cited to a real, relevant-sounding source. But when you read the source it’s cited to, the information on Wikipedia does not exist in that specific source."