Editing Eurovision Wiki:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard (section)

== Pornography Act (Austria) ==
{{Courtesy link|Pornography Act (Austria)}}

I suspect widespread use of LLM at this article recently approved at [[WP:Afc]]. Can someone have a look and let me know what you think? Also, does anyone know if Afc reviewers generally look at the possibility of LLM usage, and if so, is that a factor in disposition of a submitted article? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:This is a weird one. It looks like the article may have been AI revised and/or translated, but that may have been done in German rather than English. I don't speak German so I'm kind of out of my depth here -- pinging @[[User:Wortulo|Wortulo]] since they know way more about German AI articles.
:* The user created the [[Special:PermanentLink/1304061537|original version]] an hour or so before [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pornografiegesetz&oldid=252780137 the same thing on German Wikipedia]. Both are mostly in English. It's 2025, so recent enough to be AI, but the text here doesn't read like AI; it seems clearly copied from somewhere but I don't know where.
:* Then they [[Special:PermanentLink/1304061559|translate the English to German]] (for some reason) and add more German text. At least according to Google Translate nothing weird seems to have happened in translation.
:* [[Special:Diff/1304061548|This edit]] revises the German text, and just going by the general shape of the changes, it really, really seems like a German version of the kind of AI copyediting you see in English: summarizing a direct quote or condensing text into the usual AI-isms. For instance I think these are one pair of before/after (note: this is Google Translate):
::: '''Old:''' The SPÖ had a different focus: they were in favor of the law, but considered appropriate sexual education to be a priority. In their opinion, young people should not have to resort to this "dark and dirty literature" if they were properly educated.
::: '''New''': The SPÖ emphasized the need for sex education to keep young people away from obscene literature.
:: (the [[WP:SUPERFICIAL]] pattern, putting "the need for X" in wikivoice)
:* The article gets edited, still in German, for a few months, then gets translated to English starting [[Special:Diff/1304176695|here]]. Also seems like a straightforward translation.
:[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 02:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:(to answer your other question: there's an AfC decline template for AI-generated articles, but a few reviewers spot it way way more often than others.) [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 02:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:: Hi, Gnomingstuff, and thanks. Yes, the editor is definitely a German speaker, and imho a user of LLM for articles and Talk pages. I did not want to bias opinions by raising it in advance, but your analysis aligns with (and goes beyond) mine. Earlier talk sections like [[Talk:Effects of pornography on young people/Archive 1#Clarification Needed|this one]] give you a taste of the issue in the past, pre-LLM era. I think they may have moved to LLM/MT partly as a result of that. 
:: Part of my question relates to content and partly to whether to add the {{tl|llm}} banner to the article, which I am inclined to do. If you think this is slam-dunk, feel free, otherwise we can wait for further opinions. {{ec}} [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for asking me. Your analysis has some facts I also see as possible signs. But  Austria sounds sometimes different and Legal Language is extra sophisticated too. The Author [[User:The Other Karma]] is not a newbie and I have [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:The_Other_Karma|asked him on his German discussion page.]] and mentioned this discussion.  [[User:Wortulo|Wortulo]] ([[User talk:Wortulo|talk]]) 07:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks -- I can't comment at all on the accuracy of content in German, and it seems like the bulk of the revising might have happened based on the German text, so it's helpful to have a native speaker take a look. (Not sure that someone being new is indicative one way or the other though, there are longtime editors who now use AI and new editors who don't.)
:::As far as tagging goes, I think the fact that they've disclosed using DeepL for at lest some things (on that talk page), plus the stuff mentioned above above, is enough to pass the duck test, but up to you. (DeepL didn't use an LLM until [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/deepl-long-leader-translation-tech-181101480.html mid-2024], which would account for the huge difference in style between Jan 2024 and now.) [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 07:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::The article, got reviewed by me, the Afc Reviewer and the Edit Request Reviewer, me and the Edit Request Reviewer did that rigorously. Like the Edit Request Reviewer already sayed when [[Talk:Pornography Act (Austria)#Changes_an_additions|he reviewed it]]. The text is properly reworded from its sources, and so close to the source material, that i am still concerned if it might be close paraphrasing. Which you should also focus on and not AI. You can also just ask Wortulo to check, the text, when triple verifications isn’t already enough for you. Or yeet the source into translation software, and check on your own that everyhing is properly reworded from its sources. [[User:The Other Karma|The Other Karma]] ([[User talk:The Other Karma|talk]]) 07:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::This doesn't answer the core question, which is whether AI was used. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 08:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Eh, why does that matter if everything can be verified? [[User:The Other Karma|The Other Karma]] ([[User talk:The Other Karma|talk]]) 08:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Interesting question. G15 in English WP requires "stronger" facts, seems more pragmatic and I like it. But you know, that  in German WP use of AI is stongly forbidden.  [[:de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_KI_und_Wikipedia#Regeln_und_ihre_Weiterentwicklung|This is the situation there]]. Left in table: the rules, right: the problems I see. We meet us next week in Berlin for a KI-Meeting, to interprete :-) Therefore I do not yet discuss the German article there. [[User:Wortulo|Wortulo]] ([[User talk:Wortulo|talk]]) 08:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Because it allows editors to know what review may still need to be done, and AI text tends to need much more done than most people think -- checking everything for source-to-text integrity problems, removing synthesis and editorializing, fixing wordiness and promotional tone creeping in, possibly restoring older edits, etc. Plus it just creates an atmosphere of being collaborative and forthcoming with information, rather than adversarial and evasive. Or, in other words, if someone asks you an on-topic yes-or-no question and the answer is "why does it matter," it suggests that you don't want to give your real yes or no answer. Which in turn makes everyone wonder why.
:::::::Regarding {{tq|everything can be verified}}... was it, though? Using the {{tq|emphasized the need for sex education to keep young people away from obscene literature}} example again, there are three potential points of failure here. One, is it accurate to the original text? (the part I can't comment on). Two, did they actually ''emphasize'' it (like I did just there), or is it only mentioned in passing? Three, "the need for sex education to keep young people away from obscene literature" is an opinion that many people don't share. (Sex workers, free speech absolutists, and abstinence-only education advocates would probably not think this is a "need," all for different reasons.) The original text correctly (I assume) said this was the SPÖ's opinion, but now "the need" is just stated in wikivoice as a need of the universe. Which is an extremely common AI pattern. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 08:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Klaus, yes, thanks. My experience with translating [[Glossary of French criminal law|legal terms from French]] and from [[WP:Brazil/Glossary|Brazilian Portuguese]] has led me to be very wary of machine translation and LLMs in this field. For one thing, the terms in different legal systems don't always line up (to say the least!) and sometimes you have to know when to translate from L1 to L2, and when to retain the term consistently in L1 in the L2 text and provide an explanation of it the first time when no L2 expression will do. I expect translating legal concepts from German is at least as difficult, if not more so, than from fr or br-pt. (My German is sketchy, and my only exposure to Austrian legal German is from Kelsen's ''[[Reine Rechtslehre]]'' ({{gloss|Pure Theory of Law}}) but that kind of legal philosophical language is different from (and, I expect, easier to follow than) Austrian jurisprudence.) 
::: My preference in situations like this is to find, as much as possible, secondary sources in English; failing that, secondary sources in German. Primary sources (in either language) should be avoided like the plague, because the risk of [[WP:Original research]] ([[:de:WP:KTF]]) is that much greater in a specialized domain like this. So my default attitude is to be *extremely* wary of an article translated from German in a field like this, rather than researched from scratch using English secondary sources (translated, or not) as much as possible.
::: Which, circling back, was my original motivation for asking the question about LLM use in the article. I'd rather see a quality article at en-wiki 10% of the size of the German one, but researched and written in English, not translated. There [[WP:NODEADLINE|will always be time to improve it]] incrementally; there is no reason to do it all at once. {{ec}} [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::So the underlying process of ''this'' (not other ones) article creation was, as far as i can remember: Summarised with the help of AI in German, to speedup the process (the original text you provived a link to got deleted in the process) → Reviewed by me (checking for wrongly worded text or inaccuracies) '''→''' Reviewed by Ghilt (Wording), and enhanced by me based on feedback from Ghilt '''→''' Updated and Enhanced by other editors when the article was on the main page '''→''' Translated to English with DeepL to speed up the process '''→''' Reviewed by me (checking for wrongly worded text or inaccuracies) '''→''' Reviewed by the AFC Reviewer '''→''' Updated by me without AI in the German Article, and checked by me '''→''' Updated stuff proposed via Edit Request → Reviewed by Edit Request Reviewer → Structure changes by me after unblock, the were pruposed as an Edit-Request.{{pb}}But why disclose that? Then people just want to delete the article and block you, so no reason to disclose. I would be way more open, when i do then not have to be afraid of blocking or deletion, i dont care if i need to rewritte the article. What is L1 and L2? The article is based on German and English secondary sources? Regarding the example the underlying sentece is {{tq|Von Seiten der SPÖ hat man einen anderen Schwerpunkt gesetzt. Die SPÖ empfand das Gesetz zwar gut und richtig, wichtiger wäre allerdings eine vernünftige sexuelle Aufklärung, sodass die Jugend es nicht nötig hätte, sich an diese „dunkle und schmutzige Literatur zu wenden.}}<ref name=":03">{{cite book |url=https://oif.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/p_oif/Materialien/mat_15_prostitution.pdf|last=Graupner|first=Helmut|author-link=Helmut Graupner|chapter=Unzucht und Anstößigkeit: Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Pornografie|trans-chapter=Lewdness and Indecency: Legal Framework of Pornography|title=Prostitution und Pornografie|trans-title=Prostitution and Pornography|language=de|pages=10–46|publisher=Austrian Institute for Family Studies|access-date=October 28, 2025}}</ref> Tranlated:  {{tq|The SPÖ took a different approach. Although the SPÖ considered the law to be good and right, it felt that sensible sex education was more important, so that young people would not feel the need to turn to this ‘dark and dirty literature’.}} I have now checked this again and would still aprove the sentence: {{tq|The SPÖ emphasized the necessity of [[sex education]] to keep young people away from obscene literature.}} as accuratly translated and reworded. I also checked for terms in other systems e.g. for the Term Unzucht there is no equivalent word in english the best approximation is obscenity, and thats the chase for other stuff in the article too. You can even yeet that article into GPTZero or similar, and i will verfiy that the article is human written, which is the chase due to the source author being an human, and my human review. [[User:The Other Karma|The Other Karma]] ([[User talk:The Other Karma|talk]]) 10:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::As I understand it the German Wikipedia policy may be different, but as of right now, there is no ban on the English Wikipedia using AI for anything but creating new articles and editing/generating images. However, it is very strongly encouraged ([[WP:LLMDISCLOSE]]) to disclose it in any related edit summaries, which the edit summaries on this article don't do (and are a bit misleading overall since the one that summarized the content doesn't mention it was summarized, let alone with AI).
:::::Mentioning these things also just tends to go better for people in general. When users get blocked over using AI it's usually because they've been evasive or argumentative about it. Whereas in a lot of cases including some on this noticeboard, if people answer a question about AI with "yes, and here's specifically what I do," people are much more willing to work with them. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thx, ill take that into consideration. My experience so far was, when the word AI drops, people jump to the conclusion that the text must be made up and non-compliant (even when its not the case like here), it must be deleted and the user indef blocked. So high insentive to be evasive and secretive. And if everything is verifiable, I don't see a problem (this includes accurate wording). [[User:The Other Karma|The Other Karma]] ([[User talk:The Other Karma|talk]]) 03:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Since Karma works in two ‘cultures’: In the German-language Wikipedia, articles generated and revised (!) with LLM are prohibited. This was just decided by a two-thirds majority, without having precise recognition criteria and without knowing when articles will actually be deleted. The implementation still needs to be clarified: does a final human review and the absence of AI-typical quality defects (as with your G15) really fall under the ban or is ‘the smell of AI’ (typical wording) sufficient for deletion? Here, he can deal with this differently and more openly than is currently the case in the German-language Wikipedia. But he must expect that what he says here will also be read elsewhere. I have [[:de:Benutzer:Wortulo/KI_und_Wikipedia|summarised our situation here in a BLOG]], which you can translate in your browser if you want to find out about our situation  here – admittedly biased.  [[User:Wortulo|Wortulo]] ([[User talk:Wortulo|talk]]) 07:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|But why disclose that? Then people just want to delete the article and block you, so no reason to disclose.}} Being honest with other editors is still the right thing to do even if it means some of your edits are more likely to be reverted. For example I disclose my religious beliefs on my user page, even though doing that doesn't benefit me at all and makes it more likely that some people will revert my edits. I do it because it's a factor that affects how my edits should be examined by others, and I think being transparent about such matters is the best thing for the wiki as a whole. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[User:LWG/VOPOV|<sup>(VOPOV)</sup>]] 06:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
{{cot|bg=khaki|indent=8.0em|1=Off-topic: sidebar on "''Unzucht'' [has] no equivalent word in english" <span style="font-weight:400; font-size:75%">— [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)</span>}}
O/T: going to try to keep this brief, because this isn't the place to start parsing the translations of individual words, but I just couldn't let a claim like "{{xt|for the Term Unzucht there is no equivalent word in english the best approximation is obscenity}}" stand. For starters, most words don't have equivalents in other languages, as you and everyone who has translated knows. (Maybe ''seventy-nine'' is an exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.) Researching ''Unzucht'', I see that like most words, it has different meanings in different contexts, so the translation would vary accordingly. The common theme is that ''Unzucht'' deals with legalistic descriptions of *human sexual behavior*. The English term ''obscenity'', however, is a property of *content*, like a book, magazine, speech, often used in legal descriptions of limits on expression on sexual topics. Legalistic terms in English about criminalized or regulated sexual behavior (like ''sodomy'') or content (like ''obscenity'') often change over time and by legal jurisdiction, and my impression is that that is the case for ''Unzucht'' as well. But in any case, translating the latter as ''obscenity'' doesn't work in any context, imho. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:Since at least four people have already reviewed the article and confirmed that there are no issues, can I assume that this section can be closed? I can resubmit the article to Afc or lett Wortulo read over the article, but i dont see the reason to be more catholic than the pope, peer-review by four people is already more then overkill. [[User:The Other Karma|The Other Karma]] ([[User talk:The Other Karma|talk]]) 12:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
::I pointed out several issues above. Those apply to just one sentence, so may be similar issues with everything else summarized like so. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:::The problem with LLM is that it is addictive (hard to get used to work without it) and seductive (it makes you feel prone to believe what it says, even when it is wrong). [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  22:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

=== Refs (Act) ===
{{reflist-talk|title=<!--blank-->}}