Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (miscellaneous) (section)

== AI help in c/e ==

{{moved to|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#AI help in c/e}}
{{collapse top}}
To me, this copy edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailing&diff=prev&oldid=1343405170] appears to use an AI editor to produce the changes. I base this on the similarity to changes suggested by Grammarly (a product I use largely to detect typos that an ordinary spelling verifier would not detect). Beyond the blandness of the writing style that this produces, it can put errors into the article. In this instance I have had to change "across the Mediterranean" back to "the length of the Mediterranean", as the the two have quite different meanings in the context involved.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailing&diff=prev&oldid=1343435608]

What is the Wikipedia view on editors using AI for copy edits? [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 08:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Might it not be a good idea to ask the person who made that edit whether they used AI, or any tool? Let's at least ping them. {{u|Meleager91}}. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::Apologies for any disagreeable edits. I can confirm that I edited the article with the assistance of Grammarly, but I was reviewing each suggested change and inputting any edit manually in the plaintext. I certainly did not intend to worsen or confuse the meaning of the article. I apologize if any of my edits missed the mark. [[User:Meleager91|Meleager91]] ([[User talk:Meleager91|talk]]) 01:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:There's no current rule on using AI for copyedits. That said, quite a few of those edits changed the meaning of the sentence, so it is worth asking the editor if they meant to do that. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, a ping is appropriate; thanks. I only checked a part of the article that I knew well for retention of meaning, as I was short of time. I've not looked further at the changes for more changes of meaning.<br/>Just out of interest, Grammarly decided to check the two posts above. [[User:Chipmunkdavis]] has a writing style that it thinks needs fixing, whilst [[User:Phil Bridger]] only gets one complaint from the software (the comma before "or any tool"). To be clear, I think both original versions are perfectly OK. The second sentence of this post is something that Grammarly wants to change to a version which seems to me to have no meaning whatsoever. The lesson is, I suggest, always proofread the output of the proofing software. 
::I should probably alert [[User:HopsonRoad]], who may be interested in this discussion due to the article involved. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 15:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I think my comment is correct either with or without the comma, but subtly different in meaning. I guess Grammarly doesn't do subtle. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Shouldn't this be moved to [[WP:VPP]] instead? We now have this guideline about LLMs for articles ([[WP:writing articles with large language models]])... Actually, it now applies to only new articles. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 19:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::I have no problem with this discussion being moved to Village Pump (policy). You presumably look for opinions from the other contributors. I am going to be limited on further involvement in this matter as I will be on the road for 2 days. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 20:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}