Talk:AI Overviews

"AI Overviews" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect AI Overviews has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 1 § AI Overviews until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

AI Overviews

WP:NOTFORUM

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

An AI summary is perfect for when there is no existing article. BUT, the AI must to careful to only use trusted references for its summary. It must also refrain and redact opinion from it created articles and any re-occurring opinions which are not negated and contested by other opinions should be expressed in the last paragraph of the article.

Perhaps also or instead of "there is no article on the subject" there should be a generate article button that follows the guidelines above which is then vetted by a human for broad-viewing; meanwhile the person who generated the article can see it as a temporary entity that vanishes to all but any highly trusted human editor who decides to approve it or amend it or reject it. The user then optional rates the quality of the generated article, and if the rating is 8 or more out of then 10, it then becomes a permanent backdoor entity for the editors to moderate. Once the article is approved by the editor, the approved article also has a separate rating system this time out of 5, and should users bring the median to 3 out of 5, the article is backdoored again until further amendments are made. I feel like the the quality of most Wikipedia articles is above this rating system except for Biographies or otherwise summaries of a person, group or event; these I believe should have this rating system as well though the backdoor median should be 2 out of 5 as to keep most of these articles online and not cause chaos. Only logged in persons and person not behind a VPN should be able to vote. Therein are the Godfathers recommendations.

Tted3286 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM: bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB let him talk tho Danixer85 96 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AI Overviews result for "Joaquin Correa brother", 10 August 2025.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Missing citation source / Biased tone

Hi, In the Reception part of the article it says: "AI Overviews received mixed feedback upon its introduction. Many users appreciated the convenience of obtaining immediate and relevant information without navigating through multiple search results." Who are the "Many Users"? Why do the writing have an obvious positive biased tone? 5.122.232.235 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just responding to the comment made above. As of today, the sentence mentioned in the above comment is still in the article; and the following sentence adds a counterpoint (although admittedly it ends by saying "Google addressed these issues...").

To be honest, when I originally clicked into this talk page I was expecting the dispute to be over a negatively biased tone, just because the second sentence in the article is

"The feature has been widely criticized as producing misleading, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous claims, as well as taking traffic away from content websites."

I suppose it makes sense that, as the kinds of people which edit Wikipedia pages, we feel this way (haha). I don't have any problems with the second sentence in the article, but we really can't say that the article isn't making a stance there.

From what I skim read, the rest of the article does an alright job at remaining impartial, while also addressing that people have strong feelings about the topic. But what does the community think about letting that clearly negatively biased sentence stand alone at the top of the article? I bet a lot of people will (like me at first) read only the first two lines and then click away. Are we okay with those two lines being a vilification of the thing?

Interested to know people's thoughts here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PascalPetherick (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the article is negative and needs to be rewritten with WP:IMPARTIAL in mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Example images

@Alza08: I think the "how do magnets work" and "cheese not sticking to pizza" screenshots are better examples for this article than "what is wikipedia" and "Joaquín Correa".

The first shows the Overview intercepting a question which isn't answered fully in the visible search result extracts. The user receives a short answer without having to click through to read any of the search results, which is an issue that the article addresses. But "what is wikipedia" is a question that most search engines have always been able to answer to most users' satisfaction in the first search result, by quoting the start of Wikipedia's article on itself (Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers...).

The Overview telling people to eat glue seems a more vivid and obviously incorrect example of the AI getting an answer very wrong, than it mistakenly saying that two footballers with the same surname are siblings. Belbury (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to incidents that happened nearly two years ago in very early versions of the feature. The system has been refined since then. Now, I'm not against adding such an image to the appropriate section, but I am against replacing the existing images with such. - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't think we should include either of the glue/footballer hallucination errors?

The pizza glue case is currently described in the article text, I think there's some value in showing the reader what that would have looked like to a Google user when it happened. Belbury (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please reread my comment. I said nothing about their inclusion in the article text. What I said was that replacing the current images with hallucinations from early unrefined versions would be WP:UNDUE as it largely doesn't reflect subsequent versions. Such images should be included in the appropriate section. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it is I who should have reread your comment. I see what you're saying now and I agree with replacing the Joaquín Correa image with the glue image. Not sure I agree about the main image. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You could have searched Google for "what is wikipedia" in 2016 and been told in a rich snippet that it was a free online encyclopedia written by volunteers. A screenshot of AI being able to answer that question in more or less the same way in 2026 seems like an understatement of what Overviews are really about. Belbury (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

My paragraph keeps getting removed

Please add a paragraph about Google gemini mimics ai overview in functionality tab nobody replied me in my help desk and please add correct citation sources help me HelloIMEditingSometimes2026 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The text you added to the article was gibberish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

only if somebody would add a better paragraph about Google gemini mimics ai overview in functionality tab thanks for telling me HelloIMEditingSometimes2026 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

We aren't going to add a paragraph about anything without a source. And nor are we going to add anything until we get a clear explanation in intelligible English of exactly what you are requesting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

ok HelloIMEditingSometimes2026 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

سوال هایی دارم

سلام استر و خشایارشا زن و شوهر بودند؟ ~2026-40095-19 (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This page is where English-language Wikipedia contributors discuss article content for our article 'AI Overviews'. It is not the place to ask AI Overviews a question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's increasingly common misunderstanding, that users mistake Wikipedia's "Talk" button for a way to talk to Wikipedia's (non-existent) website chatbot. They generally get reverted as WP:NOTFORUM. Belbury (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)