The WikiProject AI Cleanup team has published a guide to help Wikipedia editors spot AI-generated writing.
The guide points out that AI-generated articles often use grandiose language, with phrases like "stands as a testament," "plays a vital role," or "underscores its importance." These kinds of overstatements pop up frequently in chatbot writing. To illustrate this, the WikiProject includes an example from a passage about the Algerian city of Douéra:
"Douera enjoys close proximity to the capital city, Algiers, further enhancing its significance as a dynamic hub of activity and culture. With its coastal charm and convenient location, Douera captivates both residents and visitors alike."
The guide also highlights the use of promotional language, such as "rich cultural heritage," "breathtaking," or "stunning natural beauty." The team points out that AI tools often drift into this kind of advertising tone, which goes against Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, especially in articles covering cultural topics.
Editorial commentary
The guide points out that editorial commentary is a common sign of AI-generated writing. Phrases like "it's important to note," "it is worth," or "no discussion would be complete without" introduce personal interpretation, which goes against Wikipedia's no original research policy.
AI chatbots also have a tendency to overuse conjunctions like "moreover," "furthermore," or "on the other hand." This style creates a formal, essay-like tone that doesn’t match Wikipedia’s usual approach.
Section-ending summaries, such as "In summary," "In conclusion," or "Overall," are another giveaway. While these concluding lines might be common in school essays, Wikipedia articles typically avoid summarizing sections in this way.
Technical clues and accidental AI slip-ups
The guide highlights several technical signals that can point to AI-generated text. One common sign is the use of title case in section headings—capitalizing every noun—instead of Wikipedia’s usual sentence case. Chatbots also tend to format text using Markdown, like asterisks (*) or underscores (_), rather than Wikipedia’s single quotation marks (').
Since February 2025, ChatGPT has been known to leave behind "turn0search0" artifacts, odd placeholder codes that appear when the chatbot tries to add an external link.
Made-up or incorrect citations are another clear warning sign. The guide specifically calls out hallucinated references, including broken links, fake DOIs, or ISBNs with invalid checksums.
A sudden rise in 404 errors on external links is another clue, especially if the links can’t be found in the Internet Archive. The guide notes that this pattern often suggests the article was produced by an AI tool.
The guide also covers cases where editors have accidentally pasted in chatbot replies. Lines like "I hope this helps," "Certainly!" or "let me know" are obvious indicators that the text was meant for a conversation, not an encyclopedia entry.
Other times, editors might leave in knowledge cut-off disclaimers like "as of [date]" or "Up to my last training update." Occasionally, even chatbot refusals such as "as an AI language model" have ended up in Wikipedia articles accidentally.
AI detection tools aren't enough
The WikiProject points out that these patterns aren't exclusive to AI. Because large language models are trained on Wikipedia articles and other human-written texts, people sometimes use the same phrasing and structure on their own. The guide recommends looking for a combination of signs before deciding that an article was written by a chatbot.
The team also cautions against relying solely on automated AI detectors. While these tools are better than guessing, the guide makes it clear that they're no substitute for human judgment.
The WikiProject AI Cleanup group has been tracking AI-generated content on Wikipedia since late 2023, but this guide is their most thorough resource so far. The project also keeps a public list of entries where they suspect AI-generated writing.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has criticized ChatGPT for inventing sources, but the organization hasn't ruled out using generative AI to support editors in the future.
