I think that's a general guideline to identify "propaganda", regardless of the source. I've seen people in person write such statements with their own hands/fingers, and I know many people who speak like that (shockingly, most of them are in management).

Lots of those points seems to get into the same idea which seems like a good balance. It's the language itself that is problematic, not how the text itself came to be, so makes sense to 100% target what language the text is.

Hopefully those guidelines make all text on Wikipedia better, not just LLM produced ones, because they seem like generally good guidelines even outside the context of LLMs.

▲

Antibabelic 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Wikipedia already has very detailed guidelines on how text on Wikipedia should look, which address many of these problems.[1] For example, take a look at its advice on "puffery"[2]:

"Peacock example:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...

	▲	embedding-shape 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, but unless you have a specific page about "This is how to treat AI texts", people will (if they haven't already) bombard you with "This text is so obviously AI written, do something" and by having a specific page to answer to those, you can just link that instead of general "Here's how text on Wikipedia should be" guidelines. Being more specific sometimes helps people understand better :)