This article needs to clarify whether the problem observed is an effect of AI (slop added to our article because the AI model learned nonsense from somewhere else) or whether AI is spreading a WP mistake (just as any search-engine would, but only more-so because AI is so credulous of what it ingests). Or maybe citogenesis of unknown root origin? I assumed it was the first meaning, given the general WP distrust of LLM and the note to AI-Cleanup folks suggesting the uncovering of a newly-identified pile of slop that had been lurking. But PMID 9 was added to List of Disney television films in 2020.[1] DMacks (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Came here to say the same thing.

This article is an example why we need better quality control for Signpost submissions.

ChatGPT thinks that proper Wikipedia articles contain PMID links (PubMed identifiers).

- what's the evidence for this assertion, and in particular for the assumption that all the bogus citations listed in the table were due to use of ChatGPT?

I spot-checked Polygnotus' example for PMID 47, i.e. the paper "The influence of pH on the interaction of inhibitors with triosephosphate isomerase and determination of the pKa of the active-site carboxyl group" being cited in Air pollution in Delhi. That bogus citation was added in 2019, i.e. years before ChatGPT's launch, which casts serious doubts on the entire premise of this Signpost article. Considering the title previously chosen by the author [2], it's hard to escape the impression that these conclusions were more motivated by a diffuse anti-AI animus than by a careful analysis of the facts.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I offer a compromise solution. Block anyone who adds nonsense sources and can't explain themselves. Also block anyone who is inserting LLM content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This article, and the data, are valuable to me because it confirms my long-held suspicion that not every article deleted under WP:G15 for having completely nonsense sources was LLM generated - but does it matter? Source fraud is an issue, and one which we aren't too good at combatting. I'll take an imperfect solution that works. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Crap is crap, and crap must be treated as such regardless of what information-flow and work-flow led to that result. The fact that our material is recognizeable as it flows out to other platforms is a good indication of how reliable and valuable those other platforms consider our content. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I agree, and moreover, we should block anyone who is inserting ONN content. ONNs constantly make mistakes, and there's never been any proof that they're capable of genuine understanding. jp×g🗯️ 08:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]