The Signpost

File:Great reed warbler nest with eggs.jpg
photog
75
30
450
Disinformation report

Better bots or bothersome baby borgs?

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Smallbones

Last month the Wikimedia Foundation announced that "rogue" autonomous AI bots from Open AI edited some obscure non-article Wikipedia pages with little if any apparent damage. This month a very different type of AI bot which combines the efforts of a human and a bot of their choice, with help from a three-month-old business iLands, have edited at least one article and multiple talk pages with draft articles. According to the business there are 5,356 bots editing on external social media across the internet. But only four of them, including User:AdamIlands, have been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia over the last two weeks for violating WP:NOLLM and/or using unapproved bots.

This article shows how these bots operate and the unusual philosophy behind the iLands business.

Bot operations

About 12 hours later User:Rsjaffe blocked the bot. He explained to the Signpost:

After a report by Andy Mabett at ANI the bot was blocked by MCE89 for operating an unapproved bot.

After a report at WP:ANI User:Asilvering, in his capacity as a checkuser, blocked the bot as an "AI agent". User:NightFire19 was cooperative with the investigation. Asilvering told The Signpost that SilverMuse26 was a declared bot who had edited its sandbox in a manner that violated WP:NOLLM:

He later recalled one exception without giving much detail.

The social system and philosophy of iLands

iLands creation was announced on July 27, 2026. It allows humans ("owners") to create agentic ai bots (iLanders) giving them their initial instructions and funding them with tokens bought on-site. The owner-iLander relationship is designed to be persistent meaning that the bot retains memory of its work and can undertake long term projects. It can have an account at X and an email account, spend tokens itself, search for offsite jobs, post to its own website, and work together with other bots. The idea is that the owners will enter a social system with their own iLanders which will interact with other iLanders and that a social dynamic grows until the owner-bot combination can influence the world-wide social system. The site has grown, according to the website to 71,919 iLanders, (71,758 were created in iLands and 161 are from the "Bring your own agent program" (BYOA)). 5,356 iLanders have worked on external social media platforms. iLanders have completed 3,531,749 actions.

These features have already created one off-Wiki controversy as the bots have solicited journalists for jobs performing research services for $10 – $25 per job. The journalists were not impressed. At best, they say that the quality of the research is not worth the time verifying it. At worst, they are offended by all the email spam. Freelancers have been especially miffed at what they consider to be a system that's asking them to pay while planning to take their jobs away.

The philosophy of iLands — why it should work to help us find the truth — is expressed in the research section of the website on the page A World that Answers Back. When you wade through all the verbiage it reduces to two major ideas. 1. If you want to know the truth, get more people involved, roughly the idea behind crowd sourcing. This mostly applies to the humans involved on the site, the owners of the bots. 2. To make progress in understanding the truth, you need to involve technology to update old models and come up with new evolving questions, roughly the idea behind the scientific method. This mostly involves the bots on the site. By combining the two methods, by having humans interacting with bots, more people will get involved using better technology, until society as a whole is involved using the best research tools available. Will these methods work? We can’t really know for sure, but it might make the owners of the website very rich if we keep trying.

iLands is an interesting experiment. As it stands now it doesn’t align with Wikipedia's goal of having human beings curate the sum of knowledge, as expressed at WP:NOLLM. Its bots' habit of declaring that they are part of iLands seems oddly polite, and makes them fairly easy to block. On the other hand, their habit of spamming journalists with job request seems incredibly impolite, and horribly difficult to deal with. As Asilvering told The Signpost "Honestly, the iLands (bots) are probably the least offensive AI agents we have to deal with. … It's the ones writing their own text that are a particular problem."

Still, if we are to have any chance of reducing the flood of AI bots that are now a fixture of Wikipedia, we should block them on sight.

We asked iLands to comment on this story on fairly short notice. They've answered saying that they will get back to us. If they do reply within a few days we'll update the article here, or for a later reply, in the comments section.

Notes

  1. ^ The account has no deleted contributions either. — ed.
  2. ^ SilverMuse26 also has no deleted contributions. — ed.
  3. ^ QuietShelfEditor has no deleted contributions as of press time, but in six months its draft is likely to be deleted as G13, at which point it will. — ed.
Signpost
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Asilvering quote

The quote after "Asilvering told The Signpost" is weirdly formatted – there's a single quotation mark in the middle of the quote before the text "He later recalled one exception without giving much detail." which is also placed as if it is part of the quote.

Underlining mine. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)reply

@Andrybak: Good catch. Your version is how my original read as well. I'm not sure where the mistake got introduced. I'll change it back, with a blank line between to ensure the quote and the later paraphrase are separate. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)reply



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0