Wikipedia:Yes, that does violate the AI guidelines

The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, and yes, that probably includes whatever you're trying to use it for.

Interpreting the guideline

Common mistake #1 - "The text I generated doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines!"

As of June 2026, the guideline (linked in the lead of this essay) begins with this line, including emphasis: Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited. This is an explanation for why AI-generated prose is forbidden, it is not a definition of the scope of which AI-generated text is forbidden. The answer, plainly given by the bold text, is all of it. AI-generated text which does not violate other policies/guidelines is still not allowed.

There was an earlier version of the guideline which only forbade writing entire articles from scratch with AI, and the limitation on AI generated text was otherwise limited to text which otherwise broke policy/guidelines. However, the NOLLM guideline was extended to cover all AI generated text in the later RfC, the close of which stated that there is clear, overwhelming support in favor of adopting [the] proposed amendments towards WP:NEWLLM. These amendments stated, in short, that they were focusing on prohibiting the use of LLMs to generate new content wholesale. As such, the guideline (as of August 2026), and the consensus which supports it, prohibits the inclusion of AI-generated text into articles.

Common mistake #2 - "The guideline says basic copyediting is acceptable, and that's all I did!"

As of June 2026, the guideline says the following about basic copyediting, emphasis mine: Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own... Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Note that the examples given are of cosmetic corrections to text written by the human editor, which is supported by the statement that the LLM must not introduce content of its own. Using standard AI chatbots, or AI-powered correction tools like Grammarly to reword entire sentences to make them more neutral, more encyclopedic, to have better grammar etc is not covered by this exception. Any instance in which the AI introduces new words that were not written by the human editor is not covered by this exception.

Common mistake #3 - "I just used it to help with my English, the guideline says translation is acceptable!"

The carveout for translation, which is further elaborated at WP:LLMTRANSLATE, is designed to permit editors already fluent in both languages to more quickly translate text from one language to the other. The bilingual fluency is key, because an editor using an LLM to translate text is expected to be able to verify that the translation is authentic. It is not designed to act as an aid for editors who are not proficient in English. If you lack the proficiency to write like that in the first place, you also lack the proficiency to ensure the AI's output is accurate and appropriate.

Perfect English fluency is not required to contribute to Wikipedia. All that is required is "the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively." We would rather communicate with you directly, making your best effort with your own ability, rather than communicate through the proxy of an LLM.

Common mistake #4 - "My AI says that's not what the guideline says!"

AI chatbots are famously bad at helping people understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, sometimes going as far to invent them wholesale when convenient. This can be due to outdated datasets, but models with retrieval-augmented generation are increasingly better at fetching and reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The bigger issue is that these chatbots are designed to be helpful and agreeable often to an excessive extent, which AI researchers call sycophancy. As such, if a user prompts the chatbot to provide them with a policy-based justification for their argument, the AI will bend itself in whatever logical pretzels it needs to in order to provide a plausible argument, even going as far as to invent new policies, as mentioned.

These kinds of mistakes are particularly common in the case of AI policies and guidelines. The guideline forbidding AI generated text contains two notable carveouts for translation and copyediting, as mentioned in the earlier sections of this essay. This provides the AI grounds to tell users that AI use isn't "inherently forbidden", or to justify away their AI generated text as being "just basic copyediting".

It's very important not to rely on the AI to give you an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because it is only telling you what you want to hear. An editor making a report at ANI once said "I knew what this person was doing was against the rules, but I didn't know which rules, so I asked the AI to point me to the relevant policies." The AI did do that: by pointing them to a nonexistent page called WP:COIBELIEF, which they then happily cited as part of their report. Similarly, if you think your AI use is acceptable, the AI will give you reasons to think so. If you're not sure what our rules say about something, ask other Wikipedians, not your AI.

See also

• Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models - on which this essay expands
• Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation
• Wikipedia:LLMs are bad search engines - on why you shouldn't even use them for non-text-generative Wikipedia tasks like finding or summarising sources for you
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid when accused of using AI - on other arguments AI users might make