I've encountered AI contributions on Wikipedia, and, although I wonder how they'll enforce such a rule, I think this is the proper stance to take.

I think readers take for granted how concise Wikipedia's prose tends to be. AI, in comparison, seems built to ramble, being overly specific where it doesn't need to be and lacking specificity where it ought to have it.

When you think about it, "what should go on a thing's Wikipedia page?" is an interesting question; the answer certainly isn't "anything and everything." AI just doesn't have a good sense for what belongs, I feel.

AI is tuned to be liked by everybody. Wikipedia is edited to be liked by nobody. An encyclopedias job is not to be enjoyed.

I use the history function from time to time and sometimes catch AI bloat.

I don’t do this systematically, just sometimes out of curiosity.

But it is always the same pattern: bloat, bloat, bloat.

What I very critically witness is the so called gender neutrality movement where large bodies of text get rewritten to fulfill a political agenda.

This is a major loss of quality. Hundreds of years of using language and getting results by using it as a means and if you compare recent downfalls in connection with gender politics you should be very worried of not already.

Even if some admins drive such agendas, why not use a new mode like a new language for those who want it? This would have been the old skill Wikipedia way and the actual edit wars that aren’t sadly made Wikipedia lose massive credibility for me.