Yes I linked to the full policy I wrote for WP1 in my OP, but I'll quote here for people who missed it
Cheers, -Travis *Usage of LLMs/AI coding assistants* In general, we are okay with contributors using AI tools to help them write code. We do it ourselves. However, the maintainers of this project are not interested in wasting time reviewing low effort or low quality PRs in general. Unfortunately, AI tools can sometimes make it easy to create such PRs. When using these tools, make sure they are in service of your own contribution efforts. That is, the tool should assist you not replace you. To be completely explicit, please do not point an LLM at one of our issues, have it write a PR that you didn't look at, ask us to review it, and then simply feed our feedback back into the tool. We could do that ourselves, thank you anyways. Basically, you should be able to understand, explain, and justify any code that an AI tool contributes to your PR. And if you use an AI tool, please be honest about it when asked. Attempting to mask the use of AI and "pass it off as one's own" is distasteful to say the least, and will make us not want to work with you. On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 8:02 PM Parthiv Menon via Wikitech-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with the points that state that there is a need for some > documentation that we can point newer contributors to in case we spot > completely AI-generated code/PRs, as has been the trend for some of the > more recent code I've reviewed. I think the same applies for commit > messages or phab task comments which sometimes look very obviously AI > generated. > > Something that fits along the lines of what Travis said - "able to > understand, explain, and justify any code that an AI tool contributes to > your PR" - should be a good resource! > > Thanks, > Parthiv Menon > > > On Sun, 25 Jan, 2026, 18:51 Pine W via Wikitech-l, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
