维基百科如何应对AI生成的虚假信息？（2026年最新策略解析）

The Rise of AI "Slop" and the Community's Response

With the rise of AI writing tools, Wikipedia editors have had to deal with an onslaught of AI-generated content filled with false information and phony citations. Already, the community of Wikipedia volunteers has mobilized to fight back against AI slop, something Wikimedia Foundation product director Marshall Miller likens to a sort of “immune system” response.

随着人工智能写作工具的兴起，维基百科的编辑们不得不应对大量充斥着虚假信息和伪造引用的AI生成内容指通过人工智能算法自动生成的教育材料、课程内容或学习资源。维基百科的志愿者社区已经动员起来，反击这种AI垃圾内容，维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。产品总监马歇尔·米勒将其比作一种“免疫系统”反应。

“They are vigilant to make sure that the content stays neutral and reliable,” Miller says. “As the internet changes, as things like AI appear, that’s the immune system adapting to some kind of new challenge and figuring out how to process it.”

“他们保持警惕，以确保内容保持中立和可靠，”米勒说。“随着互联网的变化，随着人工智能等事物的出现，免疫系统正在适应某种新的挑战，并找出如何处理它的方法。”

The "Speedy Deletion" Policy: A New Weapon

One way Wikipedians are sloshing through the muck is with the “speedy deletion” of poorly written articles, as reported earlier by 404 Media. A Wikipedia reviewer who expressed support for the rule said they are “flooded non-stop with horrendous drafts.” They add that the speedy removal “would greatly help efforts to combat it and save countless hours picking up the junk AI leaves behind.” Another says the “lies and fake references” inside AI outputs take “an incredible amount of experienced editor time to clean up.”

维基人清理这些垃圾的一种方式是对撰写拙劣的文章进行“快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。”，正如404 Media早前报道的那样。一位维基百科审阅者表示支持该规则，称他们“不断被糟糕的草稿淹没”。他们补充说，快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。“将极大地帮助打击这种行为，并节省无数小时来清理AI留下的垃圾”。另一位表示，AI输出中的“谎言和虚假引用”需要“花费经验丰富的编辑大量的时间来清理”。

Typically, articles flagged for removal on Wikipedia enter a seven-day discussion period during which community members determine whether the site should delete the article. The newly adopted rule will allow Wikipedia administrators to circumvent these discussions if an article is clearly AI-generated and wasn’t reviewed by the person submitting it.

通常，在维基百科上被标记为删除的文章会进入一个为期七天的讨论期，在此期间社区成员决定网站是否应该删除该文章。新采用的规则将允许维基百科管理员绕过这些讨论，如果一篇文章明显是AI生成且未经提交者审阅。

Key Indicators for AI-Generated Content

That means looking for three main signs:

这意味着需要寻找三个主要迹象：

• Writing directed toward the user (面向用户的写作), such as “Here is your Wikipedia article on…,” or “I hope that helps!”
• “Nonsensical” citations (“无意义”的引用), including those with incorrect references to authors or publications.
• Non-existent references (不存在的参考文献), like dead links, ISBNs with invalid checksums, or unresolvable DOIs.

Beyond the Obvious: The WikiProject AI Cleanup

These aren’t the only signs of AI Wikipedians are looking out for, though. As part of the WikiProject AI Cleanup, which aims to tackle an “increasing problem of unsourced, poorly written AI-generated content,” editors put together a list of phrases and formatting characteristics that chatbot-written articles typically exhibit.

然而，这些并不是维基人寻找的唯一AI迹象。作为旨在解决“来源不明、撰写拙劣的AI生成内容指通过人工智能算法自动生成的教育材料、课程内容或学习资源日益增多的问题”的维基项目AI清理的一部分，编辑们整理了一份列表，列出了聊天机器人撰写的文章通常表现出的短语和格式特征。

The list goes beyond calling out the excessive use of em dashes (“—”) that have become associated with AI chatbots, and even includes an overuse of certain conjunctions, like “moreover,” as well as promotional language, such as describing something as “breathtaking.” There are other formatting issues the page advises Wikipedians to look out for, too, including curly quotation marks and apostrophes instead of straight ones.

这份列表不仅指出了与AI聊天机器人相关的过度使用长破折号（“—”）的现象，甚至还包括过度使用某些连词，如“moreover”，以及宣传性语言，如将某物描述为“breathtaking”。该页面还建议维基人注意其他格式问题，包括使用弯引号和弯撇号而不是直引号和直撇号。

However, Wikipedia’s speedy removal page notes that these characteristics “should not, on their own, serve as the sole basis” for determining that something has been written by AI, making it subject to removal. The speedy deletion policy isn’t just for AI-generated slop content, either. The online encyclopedia also allows for the quick removal of pages that harass their subject, contain hoaxes or vandalism, or espouse “incoherent text or gibberish,” among other things.

然而，维基百科的快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。页面指出，这些特征“本身不应作为确定某物由AI撰写的唯一依据”而使其被删除。快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。政策也不仅仅针对AI生成的垃圾内容。这个在线百科全书还允许快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。骚扰其主题、包含恶作剧或破坏行为、或宣扬“不连贯文本或胡言乱语”的页面等。

The Foundation's Stance: A Double-Edged Sword

The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the encyclopedia but doesn’t have a hand in creating policies for the website, hasn’t always seen eye-to-eye with its community of volunteers about AI. In June, the Wikimedia Foundation paused an experiment that put AI-generated summaries at the top of articles after facing backlash from the community.

托管该百科全书但不参与网站政策制定的维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。，在AI问题上并不总是与其志愿者社区意见一致。今年六月，维基媒体基金会暂停了一项在文章顶部放置AI生成摘要的实验，此前该实验遭到了社区的强烈反对。

Despite varying viewpoints about AI across the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Foundation isn’t against using it as long as it results in accurate, high-quality writing.

尽管维基百科社区对AI的看法不一，但只要它能产生准确、高质量的写作，维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。并不反对使用它。

“It’s a double-edged sword,” Miller says. “It’s causing people to be able to generate lower quality content at higher volumes, but AI can also potentially be a tool to help volunteers do their work, if we do it right and work with them to figure out the right ways to apply it.”

“这是一把双刃剑，”米勒说。“它导致人们能够以更高的数量生成质量较低的内容，但如果我们做得对，并与他们合作找出正确的应用方式，AI也可能成为帮助志愿者工作的工具。”

Current and Future AI Tools for Wikipedia

For example, the Wikimedia Foundation already uses AI to help identify article revisions containing vandalism, and its recently-published AI strategy includes supporting editors with AI tools that will help them automate “repetitive tasks” and translation.

例如，维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。已经使用AI来帮助识别包含破坏行为的文章修订版，其最近发布的AI战略包括支持编辑使用AI工具，帮助他们自动化“重复性任务”和翻译。

The Wikimedia Foundation is also actively developing a non-AI-powered tool called Edit Check that’s geared toward helping new contributors fall in line with its policies and writing guidelines. Eventually, it might help ease the burden of unreviewed AI-generated submissions, too. Right now, Edit Check can remind writers to add citations if they’ve written a large amount of text without one, as well as check their tone to ensure that writers stay neutral.

维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。还在积极开发一款非AI驱动的工具名为编辑检查，旨在帮助新贡献者遵守其政策和写作指南。最终，它也可能有助于减轻未经审阅的AI生成提交的负担。目前，编辑检查维基媒体基金会开发的非AI工具，旨在帮助新贡献者遵守政策，包括引用提醒和语气检查功能。可以在作者撰写了大量文本而未添加引用时提醒他们添加引用，并检查他们的语气以确保作者保持中立。

The Wikimedia Foundation is also working on adding a “Paste Check” to the tool, which will ask users who’ve pasted a large chunk of text into an article whether they’ve actually written it. Contributors have submitted several ideas to help the Wikimedia Foundation build upon the tool as well, with one user suggesting asking suspected AI authors to specify how much was generated by a chatbot.

维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。还在努力为该工具添加“粘贴检查”，这将询问那些将大段文本粘贴到文章中的用户是否确实是自己撰写的。贡献者们也提交了一些想法来帮助维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。完善该工具，其中一位用户建议要求疑似AI作者说明有多少内容是由聊天机器人生成的。

Conclusion: A Collaborative Path Forward

“We’re following along with our communities on what they do and what they find productive,” Miller says. “For now, our focus with using machine learning in the editing context is more on helping people make constructive edits, and also on helping people who are patrolling edits pay attention to the right ones.”

“我们正与我们的社区一起跟进他们的工作和他们认为富有成效的事情，”米勒说。“目前，我们在编辑环境中使用机器学习的重点更多地是帮助人们进行建设性的编辑，同时也帮助那些巡查编辑的人关注正确的编辑。”

The battle against AI-generated misinformation on Wikipedia highlights the critical role of human oversight in the age of automation. While tools and policies evolve, the community's "immune system"—its collective vigilance and expertise—remains the ultimate safeguard for the integrity of one of the internet's most vital resources.

维基百科上对抗AI生成错误信息的斗争凸显了在自动化时代人类监督的关键作用。虽然工具和政策在不断发展，但社区的“免疫系统”——其集体的警惕性和专业知识——仍然是保护互联网上最重要资源之一完整性的最终保障。

常见问题（FAQ）

维基百科如何应对AI生成的虚假信息？

维基百科编辑通过“快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。”政策、AI检测工具和WikiProject AI清理维基百科编辑发起的项目，旨在应对未注明来源、写作低劣的AI生成内容日益增多的问题，并整理AI写作特征列表。项目来应对AI生成的虚假信息和伪造引用，确保内容中立可靠。

什么是“快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。”政策？

“快速删除维基百科的一项政策，允许管理员在文章明显违反特定准则时立即删除，无需经过常规的7天讨论期。”是维基百科的新政策，允许管理员直接删除明显由AI生成且未经人工审阅的文章，无需经过7天讨论期，以高效清理低质内容。

维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。如何看待AI在内容质量中的作用？

维基媒体基金会运营维基百科等项目的非营利组织，负责技术基础设施但不直接制定内容政策，正在探索AI在编辑工作中的应用。将AI视为“双刃剑”，既是内容质量的挑战（如生成虚假信息），也是潜在助手（如未来可能开发辅助工具），探索其协作路径。