Seeing Like an AI: How LLMs Apply (and Misapply) Wikipedia Neutrality Norms
Joshua Ashkinaze, Ruijia Guan, Laura Kurek, Eytan Adar, Ceren Budak, Eric Gilbert

TL;DR
This paper evaluates LLMs' ability to detect and correct biased Wikipedia edits according to neutrality norms, revealing strengths in generation but challenges in bias detection and nuanced rule application.
Contribution
It provides a detailed analysis of LLMs' performance in applying Wikipedia's neutrality policies, highlighting limitations and biases in their normative understanding.
Findings
LLMs achieved 64% accuracy in bias detection.
Models removed 79% of words removed by Wikipedia editors.
Crowdworkers rated AI rewrites as more neutral and fluent.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on broad corpora and then used in communities with specialized norms. Is providing LLMs with community rules enough for models to follow these norms? We evaluate LLMs' capacity to detect (Task 1) and correct (Task 2) biased Wikipedia edits according to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. LLMs struggled with bias detection, achieving only 64% accuracy on a balanced dataset. Models exhibited contrasting biases (some under- and others over-predicted bias), suggesting distinct priors about neutrality. LLMs performed better at generation, removing 79% of words removed by Wikipedia editors. However, LLMs made additional changes beyond Wikipedia editors' simpler neutralizations, resulting in high-recall but low-precision editing. Interestingly, crowdworkers rated AI rewrites as more neutral (70%) and fluent (61%) than Wikipedia-editor…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
