Wikipedia:AI or not quiz - Wikipedia
Jump to content
Search
Search
Donate
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Donate
Create account
Log in
Wikipedia:AI or not quiz
Add languages
Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts<br>WP:AIQUIZWP:AIQUIZ<br>WP:AIORNOTWP:AIORNOT
Test your AI detection skills! Determine whether each of the following Wikipedia articles are written by a human or an AI. Answers and signs of AI writing present are given at the bottom of each page. Note that some articles have been modified to remove obvious tells (like access dates) and the page history spoils the answer.
This test is not perfect: in the real world, the page history and the page creator's other edits should be considered.
Articles<br>[edit source]
Click on the links to access the texts.
/Kamru Village
/Rainforests of Malaysia
/C. B. Fisk
/Jewish peoplehood
/Prevagen
/Alessandro Bausani
/Senchal Lake
/Rapa fruit dove
/Pusionella ghanaensis
/Telna Inc.
Bonus<br>[edit source]
/Scalping (trading)
Share your scores!<br>[edit source]
Humans<br>[edit source]
Thisisamoment 6/10. I quite liked this test, I had a pretty close score of 6 correct and 4 incorrect, the rapa nui article got me while the senchal lake was pretty easy to know. I also did the scalping one, to which I also got incorrect, so I have a score of 6/11; still kinda trash.
OzzyMuffin238 9/10. The one about the rapa fruit dove was a real curveball. The common name of the animal wasn't emboldened, and the taxonomical name wasn't italicized. I was sure it was AI!…until I wasn't, that is.
Scopetpotffnaf2 7/10. Mostly pre-2020 human written articles, looked like AI at first sight. I thought I got the hang of it.
CrunchySpon 9/10. Only got the first one wrong, then I got the hang of it I think. Generally when the text is distributed in a bunch of small paragraphs instead of a few big ones it's AI generated.
Voussure 9/10. I mistook #4 as AI "writing," the bold text, writing style, bullet points, and large amount of quotations are what threw me off. But I didn't do as badly as I thought I would.
rgiyer32 7/10. All 3 I misidentified were pre-2020 human-written articles
KireiTonsi 7/10. I don't think I relied *too* heavily on guessing, but my confidence certainly wasn't consistently aligned with my accuracy whatsoever. Also, the answer drop-downs are coloured inconsistently which messed with me slightly.
Laxxius 5/10, I might as well have guessed, apparently I can't tell at all. I spent about 10 seconds on each one if that means anything
TheNerdy Parakeet 6/10, I might be too suspicious. Those AI ones are a little too good, though, we can write better that ChatGPT. Right, guys?
abigail 10/10, unfair advantage of being a comms grad as well as having to sit through conference speeches and slides that were beyond obviously AI
cup2/10 im so cooked
Hamimh2 (talk) 7/10! I thought some articles that were human were AI!! Humans, write better! Still great score though!
Luckytoday: 8/10. I think I was just lucky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24916-43 (talk)
Sddarealone (talk) : 7/10. I had few of my reasons correct for which I can't give spoilers here. The human ones quite honestly were surprising as I might have confirmation bias once few articles looked to be AI generated.
Mcrst.sean(talk): 6/10 . I thought 3 of the article we're AI, and one I thought was human.
Pwoli: 8/10. Both mistakes were AI false positives.
Philimania (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC): 7/10reply
User:HarrysAviation431 : 4/10
User:Randomperson112: 6/10; 2 of my mistakes were false AI positives, while the other two I mistaked for real human writing.
User:Edwardcap007: 9/10; had great difficulty checking signs, mostly focused on the references in the articles as well as wikitext formatting...
User:ElanorellëDuhíriel: 6/10; all four misses were false positives for AI writing. I might be too overly suspicious...
brachy08 (chat here lol): 6/10
Hurricane Zeta C: 8/10
Gnomingstuff: 8/8 (I contributed two examples) -- 9/9 counting the bonus
Mox Eden: 5/10...
Ceayo: 8/10
User:Cooldood5555: 8/10
toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo): 8/10 (I have a feeling us 8/10s lost to the same two examples lol)
Nil 🥝: 8/10
Zzz plant: 7/10
Helpful Raccoon: 10/10
WeirdNAnnoyed: 8/10
Amendozu: 5/10
ChrysGalley 9/10 - though helped by personal knowledge on 3 items. And unhelped by personal knowledge of the item I got wrong....
🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 7/10 with no tools such as GTP zero used
User:CR055H41RZ = 3/10,3 were correct as human/ai, 2 I focused on tiny details and mistook human for AI, 2 AI I missed, and 3 I got wrong. I felt like I was getting more used to the right and wrong answers by the end. (Bold letters )
the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk and the the 🥭 contributions) 4/10! yikes...
A diehard editor (talk | edits) - 8/10
CabinetCavers:7/10 (3 human edits mistaken for AI)
jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡):...