Hello, Perhaps this essay is worth reading & taking inspiration from, regarding activities in general whether or not they involve AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required. Especially when experienced volunteers are stretched thin, patience and time for coaching are limited resources, and a decision may be made to end someone's involvement.
My personal opinion regarding products in general is aligned with Dreamy's "I think if we adopt a similar policy or guideline, then it would need to be careful to avoid discouraging new developers learning by doing (i.e. using AI to help them learn)" along with Sohom's "(My personal compass is that it's fine to use AI tooling as long as you adhere to "Own the code you commit"", with the addition I'm opposed to expecting volunteers or a nonprofit's staff time to be used reviewing low quality contributions where those on the reviewing end haven't given informed consent in advance; also see https://www.runtime.news/ai-slop-is-overwhelming-open-source/, quoting from LLVM maintaners: "While new tools enable more development, it shifts effort from the implementor to the reviewer, and our policy exists to ensure that we value and do not squander maintainer time". Balance is required between coaching, quality, velocity, and resource allocation issues. Thanks for raising this question, Travis. Pine🌲 On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 6:34 PM Travis Briggs via Wikitech-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Agreed, my policy includes: > > > Basically, you should be able to understand, explain, and justify any > code that an AI tool contributes to your PR. > > Cheers, > -Travis > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 6:20 PM Brian Wolff via Wikitech-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm of the opinion if people can tell you are using an LLM you are using >> it wrong. Its still expected that you fully understand any patch you >> submit. I think if you use an LLM to help you nobody would complain or >> really notice, but if you blindly submit an LLM authored patch without >> understanding how it works people will get frustrated with you very quickly. >> >> -- >> Brian >> >> On Sunday, 25 January 2026, Travis Briggs via Wikitech-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I know there's been a lot of discussion/concern and policy decisions >>> around usage of LLMs for authoring content in Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> I wonder if there's been similar discussion around AI coding for >>> technical editors? I'm not sure I've seen it "go by". Can someone link to >>> where these discussions are happening? >>> >>> I also wanted to share a policy I wrote for WP1: >>> https://github.com/openzim/wp1/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#usage-of-llmsai-coding-assistants >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Travis >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
