Talk:Stingless bee

Hello, posting here for opinions since this discovery is pretty recent-- not many details to go off of. Nevertheless, there are several sources saying stingless bees were found in Palo Alto, CA USA, so it seems worthy of including a new section about them in the USA. (since there are sections for Australia & Brazil where they've been found) Sources that the bees have been found in Palo Alto: CBS^[1] NY Post ^[2] These are the 2 most reliable sources I've seen reporting on it, there are others, and local stations reporting on it as well. Pretty recent (Late Aug 2021 - Current) and not too many details, so I'm posting here for opinions on whether it should be included or not before I do it. If nobody shares any opinions here after a few months ill go ahead and add the section. Pretty much just something like the Australia & Brazil sections but for the USA is what I had in mind. (Theres also some history of stingless bees being shipped to the USA in the very early 1900s so I've heard -- this article doesn't include any of that it seems -- so if anyone can find sources for that info, could update it as well)

DrDrago1337 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Just added lots of referenced information about

• Geographical distribution and origins
• Behaviour, biology and ecology (castes, products and materials, types of nests, natural enemies)
• Pollination importance

Also organized the references into harvard citations with the list of books and articles at the end, organized by alphabetical order.

I plan to add more images, sections and translate this page into PT.

If you have anything to help build this article, please let me know so we can coordinate our effort

Sintropepe (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, not sure why you used an {{OKA}} template here; was that in order to say "Okay" or something like that? In any case, what this template does, is to categorize this page as a translation performed by an editor associated with the Open Knowledge Association. If that was not your intention, please comment out or adjust the template. For the time being, I have enclosed it in <nowiki> tags, to remove the categorization. If you *did* intend to have this template, then please move it to the top of the page, just under the Agriculture banner. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I actually intended to add this template since the edit was made by my OKA activity. It was not a translation; I wrote everything my own. The template is also used for this kind of contribution. Thanks a lot for notifying me, I wasn't aware of this positioning matter. I'll add it to the top. Anything else, let me know. Sintropepe (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, Ah, I see, thank you very much for taking care of this. I'll add something to the template instructions about where to place it, to avoid this problem in the future. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sintropepe, for your information, I have recategorized this page so it now appears in the "expand" instead of the "translated" category; that is, you can see if you scroll down this page that it is now in Category:Articles expanded by an OKA editor, and the category page itself should reflect this change in a few hours. If you edit this page, you will see parameter |category=expand added to the {{OKA}} template; this is what causes the correct categorization. As you continue your OKA editing, please continue to use the OKA template, and when your contributions to the article are improvements or expansion, please include parameter |category=expand with the {{OKA}} template. If you recall other articles you contributed to that were expansion rather than translations from other Wikipedias, please add the new parameter to those pages as well. Adding 7804j. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for clearing this up Sintropepe (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here regarding the large content addition from 2024, which displays several strong indications of AI use. (Most of the stuff mentioned above likely stems from this). Thus it needs review for accuracy and such -- some has been done but it specifically needs review for the stuff LLMs do (and some of those issues, like editorializing/superficial analysis, are still in the current version). Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that this work was AI-generated; much of that information is very obscure, found in only a single online source, and would be too hard for AI to find, parse, and cite correctly. I've seen lots of AI text on entomological topics, and it almost always comes out as obvious nonsense, while this contribution is quite coherent, and the sources are not hallucinatory. The editor who added that text, User:Sintropepe, admitted to not being a native English-speaker, so I would be more inclined to think that any use of AI was to clean up the prose, and AI-assisted text is not the same as AI-generated text. Maybe you can ask them directly, and see what they have to say. Dyanega (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

As a side note that is apropos of this, I absolutely agree that the large addition of text to Nicrophorus vespilloides was AI-generated: it was edited as part of a class project that did signficant damage to a score of insect-centered articles, requiring a LOT of damage control from later editors. The editor in that case, User:Mikakipnisuser, was one of a whole host of students in the same class, very few of which made any genuinely constructive edits. One has to wonder why instructors engage in these sorts of activities, when the net effect on Wikipedia is so often negative. Dyanega (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I'm one of the recent editors of this page. My name is Giuseppe, and I am an undergraduate Agronomy student at the University of Brasília (Brazil). I am currently conducting population and pollination studies on stingless bees at Embrapa (the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation). The contributions I've made are based on the best bibliography available on these insects, which you can verify throughout the article. I used AI to help organize and review the text I wrote based on this bibliography. You’re welcome to review and point out anything that might be inadequate, but I assure you that 99% of the information I’ve added is relevant, verified, and well-referenced (you can find the specific book sections I used).

If there’s anything I can do to help, let me know. Also, I was planning to submit this for FA status, but I haven’t yet managed to implement all the changes suggested by reviewers. If someone is willing to help, please check this discussion.

@Dyanega @Gnomingstuff Sintropepe (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Right off the bat, the first problems are original research and puffery, of the exact kind AI produces all the time:

• highlighting the intriguing adaptations found in stingless bee nest entrances - Opinion. Someone else may not think it's intriguing at all.
• highlight the unique social dynamics and adaptations within stingless bee colonies -- A) "contrasting approaches in brood rearing" simply exist, making any claims in wikivoice (i.e. not attributed in text to a source) about "highlighting" an abstract concept is original research; B) it's probably not an example of a unique social dynamic or adaptation, very few things in the world are unique.
• underlining the urgency for targeted conservation measures -- Another opinion in wikivoice, maybe someone else doesn't find it "urgent" at all.
• though much of the bee diversity remains undocumented -- Unless the source explicitly says it's undocumented, this is an WP:AIDISCLAIMER and entirely speculative. (Because if it's undocumented, then by definition we don't know whether "much of" it is undocumented, it may well end up being a tiny amount.)

Et cetera. Basically anything that matches something in WP:AISIGNS is suspect. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these tips. I've recognized these AI patterns and cleaned/rewrote what I could (not just what you've mentioned). I'd like to know if you've found other problems so we can remove this tag. And since it looks like you are good in identifying these problems, I'd like to invite ou to contribute and edit this article so we can colaborate to a good page.

@Gnomingstuff

Sintropepe (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)