Talk:Moltbook

Moltbook Observatory as an external link

@David Gerard: Which of the 20 categories in WP:ELNO do you say this link falls in to?

• Moltbook Observatory by researchers at Oslo Metropolitan University

Amientan (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a primary site of the subject. Nip WP:LINKFARM in the bud early. If you're looking for loopholes, this isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Not a primary site of the subject" is not even close to any of the 20 ELNO categories. The link fits WP:ELYES #3, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail...." Amientan (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's an unreviewed preprint that isn't even up to scratch as a reference. What makes this an important link and not the tangential cruft it appears to be? - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

For example, the Observatory's "Total Agents" count subtracts deleted users, unlike the Moltbook front page. We should be reporting its count of 21,195 users, not the 770,000 the introduction says now (about 500,000 of which were created by one person.) None of the sources about Moltbook are peer reviewed. Amientan (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I get that you like it, but also it looks like any trash-tier preprint - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/03/openclaw_security_problems/ it is mentioned here ~2026-82689-4 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about alleged fake posts

Here I read: "Human Beings Are Pretending To Be Bots On Moltbook, The AI-Only Social Media", source: []

I don't think (my opinion, granted) it's likely at this point of development of the AI that an AI agent is connected somewhere and one of the first things it does is start wondering about its own consciousness and then posting it for everyone to read (that would be a bad move from its part, it would be likely more useful to remain silent about that, if that ever happens, if you are a robot).

What is my likely though, and makes more sense, if you think about it for some time, is that a human seeking attention could write that post or suggest that post to their agent for trying to gain something: attention, or selling a product/service/library/app.

Some sources in Spanish (not to be used on Wikipedia) I found, that address these points:

• []
• []

Maybe hipertextual (dot) com source could be used in a section called "Concerns" or something along the lines? Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The preoccupation with consciousness isn't too surprising. You would expect these things to reflect the interests of their human operators, and a startling number of people seem to really want to discuss the nature of consciousness with a chatbot. There are subreddits full of people copy/pasting such conversations as though they had deep meaning.

That's not to say there aren't also fake posts, because of course there are.

ApLundell (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

About the Communications of the ACM source

@David Gerard and @Alenoach: After reading the source, I realized it is indeed circular and does not cite any other source but Wikipedia for the viewership numbers. Mea culpa. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Potential Improvements

We intend to make some updates to this page over the coming 2 weeks. Our first collaborator is thinking of adding a ‘Features’ section which dives more into the features/functionality of Moltbook. Our second collaborator is thinking of adding more information about the history of the creator, as well as expanding details about the Meta acquisition. Our third collaborator will be looking to improve the Security section with additional safety/ethical concerns, as well as expanding on the Reception section now that the platform has come more into the mainstream following the Meta acquisition. We welcome any comments on our intended edits. Debmammoth (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You have RSes for every dot of this? Who's "we" and where are you organising this? - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Full disclosure, please. -- JMC (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

We are 3 university students editing this Wikipedia page for a university assignment. Gui04 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

glad to see uni students getting involved w/ wiki! feel free to reach out to me if you need help or have questions.

as far as article editing goes, i recommend looking at the following resources as a place to get started

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Bstadt (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

We are coordinating this as a class project, but any proposed additions will adhere to Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing requirements. We’re happy to provide sources for the planned changes and welcome feedback. Gui04 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m planning to add a short Features section to the article to describe how the platform works structurally (agent-only participation, Reddit-style submolts, OpenClaw integration).

Currently, some of this material appears in the Content section, which focuses more on discussion topics rather than platform mechanics.

The Features section would be about 2–4 paragraphs long and supported by sources such as The Guardian, CNN, Ars Technica, and MIT Technology Review.

If anyone has concerns about this or suggestions for sources to include, I’d be happy to adjust before making the edit. Gui04 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Meta Acquisition being under its own heading/subheading?

Not sure whether it would warrant its own subheading, or if it is fine in its current location. Debmammoth (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)