Not in this particular case; the point of Wikipedia is to surface objective and factual information (we could debate what "objective/factual" information are,

Not in this particular case; the point of Wikipedia is to surface objective and factual information (we could debate what "objective/factual" information are, but that's a different issue). The issue with LLMs is that they try to insert a lot of judgement about the subject matter without quantification or comparison. A lot of this is already covered by Wikipedia's other rules, such as those about weasel words, verifiability etc. but it is useful to have rules that specifically detect AI content, and by proxy, also take out all the bad human writing along with it. For example, when asked about person X who discovered a method to do Y, a LLM may try to write "As a testament to X's ingenuity, he also discovered method Y, which helps achieve Z in a rapid and effective manner"; it doesn't really matter whether it was written by a LLM as this writing style is unsuited for Wikipedia. Instead, one may have to quantify it by writing "He/she discovered method Y, a method to do Z, which was regarded as an improvement over historical methods such as P and Q", with references to X discovering Y, and research that cites that improvement. LLMs could adopt that latter writing style and cite references, but the issue there is that a large market that wants to simply use it to decompress their documents to satisfy the intricacies of the social structure they are embedded in. As an example, someone may want to prove to their manager that they produced a well researched report, but since their manager may have to conduct said research in order to know whether it meets their bar and instead use the document length as a proxy. LLMs meet a lot of such use cases and it'd be difficult to take away this "feature".