Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

After the consensus to deprecate and remove links to archive.today and its mirrors (incl. archive.is), I assume that applies to old signpost articles such as WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed, which linked to the site six times, before I removed those links. I have created a template (User:Mitchsavl/signpost atoday removed) to indicate articles which had links to the site. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would have recommended calling this piece an op-ed rather than a special report. Changing that now is too late, of course. I support publishing it, but as an op-ed and not a special report. Thanks. ↠Pine (✉) 17:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that the use of generative AI on the Signpost has become a fairly significant issue for readers and other editors. In response, I decided to draft a simple template that could be used to mark AI containing articles, which could be tied in with editorial guidelines to help standardise the messaging behind the use of AI. As it stands, the template has 3 parameters, (1) one for the author making the statement, (reason) one for the reason provided by the author, and (reviewer) for the Signpost editor who has reviewed the AI content for accuracy and asserts the AI has been used appropriately (automatically links to userpage).

Mitchsavl has disclosed the use of generative AI in the following Signpost article.
The author has given the following reason for its use:copyediting
Mitchsavl has verified the content is accurate, and deemed the extent of AI use appropriate for the context.

While this by no means will stop controversy over the use of AI, it will guide the development of policy surrounding its use in the paper, and show the community that it is something we are taking seriously. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not really sure that there is a problem which would be solved by this. Most notably, there is not really "use of generative AI" to speak of, apart from two instances four years apart. The single time I used a neural network to write some articles, in August 2022, it was very thoroughly disclosed, and received with fulsome praise. The single time since then that we accepted an opinion piece from somebody affiliated with the WMF that they had used a LLM to copyedit, a couple months ago, it was likewise disclosed in a hatnote basically identical to what you suggest, and some editors took extreme offense to it nonetheless. There is not an ongoing editorial practice of using LLMs to write articles. jp×g🗯️ 03:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of the infrequency of it occurring, though the way I see it, for the occasions where there may be a legitimate need for AI, such as in an article discussing AI content on Wikipedia, or even only in aiding the development of drafting, I think having a template with predefined requirements may help communicating this to readers, and where an indication can be provided of an independent editor having checked the content and indicated their judgement, it may help to communicate this to readers.

I also made it in part so I could learn a bit more about template creation by giving myself something to aim for, and develop those skills in the future. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a subpage of Module:Sandbox being invoked in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/WikiProject report. This is a note that someone should either change that to use a production module, or move the sandbox module page into production. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)