Wikipedia:Yes, that does violate the AI guidelines

The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, and yes, that probably includes whatever you're trying to use it for.

Interpreting the guideline

Common mistake #1 - "The text I generated doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines!"

As of June 2026, the guideline (linked in the lead of this essay) begins with this line, including emphasis; Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited. This is an explanation for why AI-generated prose is forbidden, it is not a definition of the scope of which AI-generated text is forbidden. The answer, plainly given by the bold text, is all of it. AI generated text which does not violate other policies/guidelines is still not allowed.

There was an earlier version of the guideline which only forbade writing entire articles from scratch with AI, and the limitation on AI generated text was otherwise limited to text which otherwise broke policy/guidelines. The NOLLM guideline was explicitly extended to cover all AI generated text in the later RfC, the close of which stated there is clear, overwhelming support in favor of adopting [the] proposed amendments towards WP:NEWLLM. Those proposed amendments stated, in short, that they were focusing on prohibiting the use of LLMs to generate new content wholesale. As such, we must understand the guideline (as it stands at time of writing, June 2026), and the consensus which supports it, to be a prohibition on the inclusion of AI-generated text into articles.

Common mistake #2 - "The guideline says basic copyediting is acceptable, and that's all I did!"

As of June 2026, the guideline says the following about basic copyediting, emphasis mine; Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own... Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Note that the examples given are of cosmetic corrections to text written by the human editor, which is supported by the statement that the LLM must not introduce content of its own. Using standard AI chatbots, or AI-powered correction tools like Grammarly to reword entire sentences to make them more neutral, more encyclopedic, to have better grammar etc is not covered by this exception. Any instance in which the AI introduces new words that were not written by the human editor is not covered by this exception.

Common mistake #3 - "I just used it to help with my English, the guideline says translation is acceptable!"

The carveout for translation, which is further elaborated at WP:LLMTRANSLATE, is designed to permit editors already fluent in both languages to more quickly translate text from one language to the other. The bilingual fluency is key, because an editor using an LLM to translate text is expected to be able to verify that the translation is authentic. It is not designed to act as an aid for editors who are not proficient in English; because if you lack the proficiency to write like that in the first place, you also lack the proficiency to ensure the AI's output is accurate and appropriate.

Perfect English fluency is not required to contribute to Wikipedia. All that is required is "the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively." We would rather communicate with you directly, making your best effort with your own ability, rather than communicate through the proxy of an LLM.

Common mistake #4 - "My AI says that's not what the guideline says!"

If there's one thing experience (and logic) tells us, it's that AI chatbots have no idea what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines actually say. They can only scrape examples of how people have cited them in previous discussions, and use that to build an idea of how to vaguely refer to them to support an argument. Sometimes, with very commonly-cited policies, this works. However, it's just as likely they'll wildly misapply a policy, claim it applies in a case where it clearly does not, or in some cases, entirely invent a policy.

These kinds of mistakes are particularly common in the case of AI policies and guidelines, which are a very new and evolving field of Wikilaw which AI training data has not caught up to. It is very common for AI chatbots to tell their users that "Wikipedia policy does not explicitly forbid AI assisted editing, only content which is unsourced/unreliable/etc.", which they will then dutifully repeat as an argument as to why they should not be sanctioned for their chronic insertion of AI slop into the encyclopedia. This was true at one time, but it is not true as of June 2026; see Common mistake #1.

See also

• Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models - on which this essay expands
• Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation
• Wikipedia:LLMs are bad search engines - on why you shouldn't even use them for non-text-generative Wikipedia tasks like finding or summarising sources for you
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid when accused of using AI - on other arguments AI users might make