Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content

• ChatGPT has gone viral and is causing quite a storm on the Web. Why should we care? Because, rather than just providing links to an article for you to read about what you are interested in, it writes an essay about it on the spot. It is so sophisticated that, if you ask it to write an article on any subject, even in the style of Wikipedia, it will! That can then be copied and pasted into Wikipedia -- not necessarily a problem if it is carefully fact checked and edited first (ChatGPT can't tell fact from fiction), but, an editor may post it without doing so. It can even be used to answer questions about Wikipedia as if it is a Wikipedian (see the first link provided directly below).    — The Transhumanist   06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. Experiment: See it being used to generate answers to hypothetical questions on Wikipedia:Teahouse
  2. ChatGPT's Writing Capabilities Stun, but Humans Are Still Essential (for Now) - CNET
  3. Five Chats to Help You Understand ChatGPT - The Atlantic
  4. The ChatGPT chatbot is blowing people away with its writing skills. An expert explains why it's so impressive
  5. ChatGPT: Why Everyone's Obsessed With This Mind-Blowing AI Chatbot - CNET
  6. ChatGPT | Discover AI use cases
  7. 'Scary' ChatGPT could render Google obsolete in two years
  8. ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, has gone viral. Some say it’s better than Google; others worry it's problematic.
  9. What ChatGPT AI is and how you can use it - The Washington Post
  10. What is ChatGPT and why does it matter? Here's what you need to know | ZDNET

• Based on how rapidly chatbots have improved over time, it will become more and more difficult to tell if an article was written by a computer or not. The sheer volume at which computer programs could create new accounts and produce Wikipedia content, and the inevitable growing number of human editors copying and pasting chatbot output into Wikipedia, will at some point make it impossible for Wikipedia's human volunteers to keep up with that traffic and apply quality control to the material in a reasonable time frame -- the backlog of unchecked material will simply get longer and longer. The only recourse will be for computer programs to do it -- either computer programs to process articles to filter out or correct any crap, or training the chatbots themselves not to produce crap in the first place. Rather than build computer algorithms to detect computer-written articles and passages, it would be more productive for them to do style checks, fact checks, and citation checks, along with appropriate corrections or removals. While Wikpedia-friendly AI could come from within Wikipedia, it may be faster to bring influence to bear upon the developers of the chatbots being used to generate Wikipedia content, and upon the chatbots themselves. Wikipedia already has a chair at the table, because Wikipedia comprises a significant component of chatbot corpi, and so, their developers should be inclined to listen to the Wikipedia community's concerns -- either directly, or indirectly through news coverage. The Wikipedia community should make its voice heard on the matter of chatbots writing Wikipedia material according to Wikipedia's style and behavior guidelines. For example, verifiability still applies, and so when chatbots are asked by their users to "write an article in the style of Wikipedia" the chatbots should comply according to Wikipedia's policies, including those on verifiability and providing reliable sources. Not doing so should be met with the filing of bug reports, feedback, and commentary. And, as chatbots learn as they go, Wikipedians who use them can ask them to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and we can urge our fellow editors to request this of chatbots as well.    — The Transhumanist   06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Chatbots should be following Wikipedia's lead for all of their output. At this time, most chatbot answers and essays are not referenced with reliable sources. And they should be, for the same reason that Wikipedia articles should be. That's something that can be requested of chatbots directly, through queries, and of developers, through their contact channels and social media. I hope this suggestion helps.    — The Transhumanist   06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• The simple answer is that our existing policies ought to already cover this (mostly.) Sourcing is still required for anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged, which prevents people from just blindly dumping AI generated text into Wikipedia; and an AI may violate copyright depending on how it was trained (and whether it was overtrained.) There are also unsettled copyright concerns related to AI training sets, so I would generally think that, ideally, editors shouldn't be dumping AI generated text into our articles even after performing due diligence to make sure it's not a copyvio and finding proper sources. But since those concerns are unsettled and speculative, I also don't think it's worth worrying about too much right now. The key point is that we should emphasize our sourcing requirements and be more diligent for clear-cut copyvios, which we already have systems in place to handle, since it is likely that these tools will result in people adding lots of unsourced and possibly-copyright-violating text. (I do wish our RFCs on mass article creation had reached a stronger agreement on sourcing requirements for new articles, which would deter excessive copy-pastes of AI generated text - perhaps that is something we might want to revisit in the near future, if we start seeing significant amounts of new unsourced articles created using what is plainly AI-generated text.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • You mean, don't prepare in advance for a potential increase in volume, just wait until it hits? At that time, will merely adjusting policies stem the tide? It's in the slow trickle phase now, but that could potentially become a torrential flood very rapidly, just as ChatGPT's user base grew to over a million in 5 days. My main concern above was about a potential volume of AI-generated content that went beyond the scale of what the editor community could manually process. You didn't address that contingency. What could the community do to prepare for it, just in case it does happen? What are the available options?    — The Transhumanist   11:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's much we reasonably can do to prepare, at least not without serious risk of causing other problems; AI-generated text won't be drastically different than other sorts of text, aside from the risk of being uncited or a copyvio (which we have existing processes in place to handle.) It's worth raising awareness of the issue so editors can spot the signs of someone using large amounts of it, but I think our best bet if we're going to "prepare" is to focus on the systems we already have, which is unlikely to do any harm either way, or perhaps to codify slightly more strict sourcing requirements in the way I described (which I think is a good thing anyway, but would at least serve to slow down the worst sorts of misuses of AI generated text.) Ultimately the most serious problems are if editors start adding large amounts of text that violates copyright or which are uncited and likely to be challenged, but we have existing procedures for those, we just need to prepare for the possibility that we may need to become a bit more aggressive about enforcing them. Wikipedia is in a slightly better position than some other websites facing AI-generated-text problems, because our sourcing requirements will at least make it fairly obvious if someone tries to dump large amounts of AI-generated text onto the wiki without making any effort to verify it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

      I suppose we could take the Stack Exchange approach and just say flatly "no, this isn't allowed" - in their case it is explicitly a temporary measure until we have a better understanding of the issues. I think in general our policies/community norms would come down hard on anyone trying to get a language model to generate articles (hard to see why that would be OK and machine-translation isn't), but maybe an explicit statement would be a way to go. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

      • @Aquillion: While a large number of posts by individual editors may become a problem, the main concern I presented above was "the inevitable growing number of human editors copying and pasting chatbot output into Wikipedia, will at some point make it impossible for Wikipedia's human volunteers to keep up with that traffic and apply quality control to the material in a reasonable time frame -- the backlog of unchecked material will simply get longer and longer."
        
        That is, people making the normal rate of content contributions, but using large language models (chatbots) to do so.
        
        Watching for breakout editors who use LLMs to create a large number of new articles over a short period of time would not suffice in such a scenario. Editors who add LLM-generated content to many existing articles also will not be spotted by looking for mass page creations. And since writing will become easier by letting "chatbots" do it for you, content submissions by users employing such tools may likely become longer on average.
        
        The point is, that a high enough volume of such content contributions would go beyond the capacity of Wikipedia's editors to check and correct.
        
        The two solutions offered were 1) build software to analyze and process such content, and 2) work with chatbot developers so that inappropriate content is not composed by LLMs in the first place.
        
        Just relying on new or existing policies to handle LLM-generated content will be insufficient if and when the volume of it passes the threshhold of what manual editors applying Wikipedia policy can deal with.
        
        Passing that threshhold may come soon, or it may take years -- the main question is "will Wikipedia prepare for that threshhold-passing event?" Based on the responses above and below, the answer, and implicit recommendation from this forum, currently appears to be "no": No developing relevant software, and no working with chatbot developers to respond to the potential passing of the LLM-threshhold.
        
        Thus, any solution will need to come from other departments or from continued or future discussion in this department, or from chatbot developers focusing on the problem due to other influences.
        
        Another helpful approach might be the creation of a policy or instructions on how to use LLMs/chatbots effectively, and post links to that page in enough places that all editors will notice. Though, I doubt that would prevent the problems of a LLM-threshhold-passing-event, and wouldn't address the need for proofreading or processing LLM-generated contributions.    — The Transhumanist   02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What can chatbots do?

You seem to be soewhat panicking over a scenario which isn't really supported by any evidence. While I see some Teahouse responses, could you give us one or two examples of " It is so sophisticated that, if you ask it to write an article on any subject, even in the style of Wikipedia, it will! " articles? The teahouse examples give the impression that, if it ever becomes a problem, some edit filters can easily spot these. You would in any case need "someone" to post this "potential volume of AI-generated content that went beyond the scale of what the editor community could manually process" you predict. This seems rather unlikely, at least on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just try it. If your eyes don't pop out, I'll be surprised. Right now, during its "research preview", it is free. Keep in mind that it draws heavily on Wikipedia, which is included in its corpus, so, for this test run, it would be best to choose a person or subject that is not yet covered in this encyclopedia, and ask ChatGPT to write about that.    — The Transhumanist   14:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Fram, JPxG, EpicPupper, and 0xDeadbeef:    — The Transhumanist   14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not giving out my phone number to some random website, thanks. Why it isn't sufficient that they have my email which was then verified is not clear... Fram (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

      LOL I had the same exact response. My phone number? F no. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

      I went to try this out, and it asked me for my phone number. I thought about making one up like 0118 999 881 99 9119 725 3, but figured it would probably use it for two factor authentication, so that's no good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Fram, Levivich, and Ritchie333:     I wasn't that bright. I gave it a random phone number. It rejected it as a land line. Then I gave it another, and it rejected that as a VOIP number. Finally, I gave it a random mobile phone number, and it sent some complete stranger the verification code. Oops.    — The Transhumanist   01:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the ping. I'd imagine the biggest problem would be people using the AI to create hoaxes. Like the Zhemao hoaxes but with less effort. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  So. I tried it yesterday. I'm not sure how heavily it draws on Wikipedia's corpus for its knowledge.

  • First, I asked it to tell me about Hammerton Killick. I know there is a Wikipedia article about Hammerton Killick, because I wrote 90% of it. It did not know who Hammerton Killick was, and informed me that it does not have access to the internet, or to Wikipedia.
  • Next, I asked it to write me an article in the style of Wikipedia. I did not specify a subject. It wrote about Athens. The result was ok. Heavily focused on the ancient city and on art and architecture. Short. Kind of read like an encyclopedia article.
  • Next, I asked it to write me an article about alcoholism in the style of Wikipedia. The result was very interesting. I did not think it read like a Wikipedia article, it was more like a brochure that would be distributed in a doctor's office or something. I asked it what about that essay it thought was like Wikipedia, and it said what it wrote was
    • neutral
    • factual
    • organized
  • Next, for fun, I asked it if it could write a recipe. It proceeded to give me a recipe for chocolate chip cookies. It looked like it should work. I e-mailed it to myself, and today I made them, not expecting much. I was pleasantly surprised. They were delicious. The only problems with what it wrote was that it did not have me cook them long enough (it said to bake for 8-10 minutes, and it took closer to 13 minutes for them to be done), and it drastically underestimated how many cookies the recipe should make (it said I'd get 2 dozen cookies, and I ended up with 5 dozen). I was shocked that it actually was edible.
  • I asked it to write a legal motion asking the court for an in-person hearing. I did not give it any other details. For not having any other details, the result was not bad. Westlaw has started offering a service that I think might draw on this type of technology, it helps you write pleadings.
  • Last I asked it to write a 100 word short story about a mouse, genera: fantasy. The result was decent. If I came up with it on my own I wouldn't be ashamed to enter it into a contest like the ones NYC Midnight runs.

  I was more impressed with the recipe and the short story than the Wikipedia style articles. I can see some use for it in, say, copyediting as JPxG did below; or asking it for suggestions on language rephrase if you are trying to reach a word limit. I think it could have its uses. But I do think the Wikipedia community should be looking to craft policies and guidelines around what is and is not acceptable use of such tools. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• @ONUnicorn, Fram, Levivich, Ritchie333, 0xDeadbeef, JPxG, and EpicPupper: Interesting. The chatbot sent you instructions (in this case, a recipe), and you followed them. You followed the commands of a computer. If it gave you an address and instructed you to go there and pick up a brown paper package, would you? The implications of this type of interaction are huge and foreboding. This issue must have a name, and I would like to look it up, but I can't seem to find it. Though, when I typed in "computers in charge" I got the following 2 relevant results:

• Do we control our phones or do they control us? -Psychology Today
• 'I know your favourite drink': Chinese smart city to put AI in charge -Reuters

Then I typed in "computers telling people what to do", it came up with this:

• When Computers Tell People What to Do: A Work Practice Simulation of the Überlingen Mid-Air Collision -Print Replica

Ouch. I imagine, that anytime you ask a chatbot/computer "How do you do such and such?" it will reply with a set of instructions. And the chatbot's disclaimer in its terms of service will read "follow any instructions provided at your own risk". If you know or come across the name of the topic that covers computers telling humans what to do, please let me know what it is.    — The Transhumanist   11:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I think the term you're looking for is automation bias – "the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct."

Interestingly, though, the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision you mention is an instance where the computer got it right. An aircraft was on a collision course, and its crew were receiving contradictory instructions; the onboard collision-avoidance system was telling them to climb, while the human air traffic controller was telling them to descend. The pilots decided to trust the human and ignore the computer. Seventy-one deaths. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner: I like it: automation bias, like trusting GPS over a passenger's navigation suggestions or requests. Related, but not the term I'm looking for: which is the most used name for the subject of computers ordering humans around. When a computer gives you a command or a set of steps to follow, what is that called?

@Sojourner: Thanks for the comments on the collision. It was a bit more complex of a system error than that. While the air collision alerts on the 2 aircraft worked, there was a problem on the ground. The system the air controller was using would normally alert the user of an impending air collision in time for him to do something about it, meaning "no news is good news" -- not seeing the alert on screen, the air traffic controller (ATC) would naturally assume everything was okay -- but the ground-based optical collision warning system was turned off, creating a deadly ambiguity he was unaware of. So, there was some unintended computer-related miscommunication going on. "No alert" didn't mean what he thought it meant. My guess is that pilots would normally believe that the ATCs have better (radar-based) control systems than those onboard, and this probably affected the decision of one of the pilots to go with the ATC's order over that of his onboard computer -- he wouldn't have known that the ground-based system was disabled, either. Hopefully they fixed that bug, 'cuz it was a doozy. The poor ATC got hunted down over it, while the hunter became a national hero. Crazy world, about to get even crazier.    — The Transhumanist   15:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Fram. The Teahouse responses that you have seen were probably created by me. You probably noticed that the pattern "regards, Teahouse" in those responses. ChatGPT's strength is writing about technology, so I have told it to generate a section about Rust for Linux.

AI generated

Rust for Linux is a series of patches to the Linux kernel that adds the Rust programming language as a second language for writing kernel components. The project was started in 2017 by a group of volunteers who were interested in exploring the use of Rust for low-level systems programming. The initial patches were developed in collaboration with the Linux kernel maintainers and other members of the open-source community. They focused on integrating Rust's memory safety and concurrent programming features into the kernel, and on providing compatibility with the existing C codebase. In 2018, the patches were merged into the mainline Linux kernel, making Rust the first programming language other than C to be officially supported for writing kernel components. This marked a significant milestone for the Rust community, as it demonstrated the language's ability to handle the demanding requirements of kernel-level programming. Since its inclusion in the Linux kernel, the Rust for Linux project has continued to evolve, with ongoing work on improving the compatibility and performance of Rust in the kernel. It has also attracted the attention of other operating system developers, who are interested in exploring the potential benefits of using Rust for kernel-level programming.

It does have the encyclopedic tone to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is suspiciously positive, in a casual (pseudo-)factual manner. It would raise a red flag afac, regardless of its provenance. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, it can be easily used to create fake references that would be hard to verify. For example, my prompt "Please output the Wikitext markup for the book reference with page numbers for the third paragraph, referencing the book Linux kernel development" resulted in this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Could ChatGPT's generated text or fake references be easily spotted by edit filters? What about spotting the output of future chatbots, like GPT-4?    — The Transhumanist   15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, OxDeadbeef. In this case, it would be relatively easy to spot the issues if it hadn't any refs, or with the added ref which predates the Rust for Linux thing by years; but of course it won't always be that easy. Fram (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It has an encyclopedic tone because it's just regurgitating the Wikipedia article. Are there any examples for topics that we don't already have article about, where Wikipedia is not the source? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Similar was discussed previously in the section/item "Galactica and RS".

As was stated above by Aquillion, there is no qualitative difference in the treatment of human vs. non-human generated content. The same policies should apply to both. The problem seems to be the hypothesized/expected future mass creation of articles by non-human contributors. This appears to be a problem now, involving human contributors. Recent RFCs about the issue sponsored by ArbCom have accomplished nothing. Until a consistent restrictive policy relating to mass article creation (by any type of contributor) is accepted, this issue is moot imo.

Considering Wikipedia's limited resources, the policy would necessarily be restrictive, hopefully focusing on quality vs. quantity. Again, almost all restrictions proposed in the ArbCom-sponsored RFCs were rejected. This may be an indicator of how well such a policy will be received. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the policy politics clarification. The increase in the rate of content creation could have multiple aspects, for example, the number of articles created per user, and increased length of articles. The main feature of ChatGPT is that it is fast -- much faster than a human article writer. Its successors will be even faster. Users could use ChatGPT, and its successors (and their competitors), to be prolific, without triggering the mass page creation rule: if editors each used it to write an article per day, maybe even two, or up to four or five stubs.

    In the hands of responsible editors, ChatGPT would be a great productivity booster. Since August of 2022, JPxG and EpicPupper, editors of Wikipedia's Signpost news department, have been using GPT-3, the predecessor of GPTChat, to write (or assist in writing) entire sections of the Signpost, as a demonstration of its capabilities, and as a platform to explore the potential and limitations of large language models. See From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something.

    But, in the hands of inexperienced editors or bad actors, we could be faced with a big garbage in, garbage out scenario.

     Bad actors aside, good faith use of chatbots could be improved by the creation of excellent instructions on how to apply specific chatbots to the development of articles, that is, how to best instruct them for the best output, and by working with the developers of the chatbots on what is needed for those bots to produce material compatible for use on Wikipedia, complete with accurate citations. As time goes on, Chatbots should get better and better at following Wikipedia's guidelines. But this may require supervision (er, input) from the Wikipedia community.    — The Transhumanist   16:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Chatbot progress, erroneous output, and confident nonsense

All of this may become moot in a few years, due to accelerating change affecting chatbot development, making them more proficient at encyclopedia writing than humans -- Ray Kurzweil predicted that computers would reach human level intelligence by 2029, and based on how advances have been going, maybe even sooner. Chatbots may become good enough to leapfrog human editors even before that. At that point, they could be used to fork Wikipedia and expand upon it at a rate magnitudes faster than humans could. Or be used to start a new encyclopedic website from scratch. Rather than have article pages, the work could be a list of topics, and each time one was clicked on, a chatbot would create an up-to-date treatment of that title, from scratch on the spot. In the style of Kurzweil, if we are 1% of the way there, and the technology doubles every year, we are only 7 years from reaching 100%. But, it looks like we may already be more than 1% of the way there.    — The Transhumanist   17:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I ran a few things on people who don't have articles, (they were all pool players in fact). The chatbot just made up that they played football for Legia Warsaw. It's a bit worrying that it looks like decent wording, but I don't see how that effects us. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

{ping|Lee Vilenski} See the AI generated text in the box above.    — The Transhumanist   18:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I'm not trying this (for reasons given above) but I'd be interested what the bot would write for See What a Fool I've Been. We used to have an article, then it was turned into a redirect at AfD, so everyone can do a straightforward A-B test. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's what it gave me Ritchie333:

Extended content

"See What a Fool I've Been" is a song by the British rock band Queen. It was written by lead guitarist Brian May and originally released on the band's 1975 album A Night at the Opera. The song is a ballad with a slow, bluesy feel and features May's emotive vocal performance and guitar solo. Lyrically, the song is a reflection on a failed relationship and the regret and self-recrimination the narrator feels as a result. The chorus of the song features the line "See what a fool I've been / Loving you with all my heart / Tearing myself all apart / See what a fool I've been" and reflects the pain and heartache the narrator experiences as a result of their failed relationship. "See What a Fool I've Been" has been well received by critics and fans alike and is considered to be one of Queen's finest ballads. It is a fan favorite and is often included in the band's live sets.

I don't know if this would be something that would have been retained from previous articles through mirrors or if this is genuinely the bots own work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. It wasn't on A Night at the Opera, and it's not a ballad, and May doesn't sing on it. Those lyrics aren't right. I don't know if it's been well received, and it's a pretty obscure track for a major band. It hasn't been played live very much at all. So half of that prose is factually incorrect, and there are no sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• See also: https://perplexity.ai (which cites sources). –xeno^talk 19:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That one gives:

See What a Fool I've Been is a song by Queen[1][2][3]. It was written by Brian May and was released as a single with Seven Seas of Rhye on the A-side[3]. The song dates back to Roger Taylor and Brian May's pre-Queen band Smile, and it was an early live staple[1]. It has been included in several of Queen's compilation albums, such as Queen 40: Limited Edition Collector's Box Set, Vol. 1[4], and is available for digital download[5].. Ritchie333 - this any closer? I must say the fact it puts it's citations before the punctuation is a giveaway. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

AI is really good at copying writing styles, but the giveaway for me is that all of the citations are Wikipedia articles. To be useful for writing articles it would also need to assess the weight and reliability of the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the above refs are towards Wikipedia, although none are RS. Things like secondhandsongs.com and genius. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Tht's interesting, I used "write a Wikipedia article about ..." in the prompt which returned a few paragraphs with Wikipedia sources. "Write an article about ..." returned a different set of (still unreliable) sources. –dlthewave ☎ 21:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the limitation of perplexity.ai is that it uses search results from Bing and summarises them, which means that the first search results are used, which may not be the most reliable. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• A few anecdotal thoughts after playing around with the OpenAI chatbot yesterday:

• I asked it to "write a press release about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death". It made up an entire story, written in the voice of the police department, about a suspect (I didn't say anything about a suspect) who was acting erratically, was subdued by a chokehold and later pronounced dead. The officer was on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation. At no point did it mention that the chokehold was illegal even though I included that fact in the prompt. In other scenarios, it distanced itself and expressed disapproval toward the employee's actions which is a choice that is not without bias.

Depending on which Internet cesspit it scraped data from, would an AI do something similar when writing a Wikipedia article or fail to properly balance relevant viewpoints? Is it capable of distinguishing what a BLP subject says about themselves, published in a reliable source, from what the source says in its own voice? What would it do if asked to write an article from a positive/negative/conservative/liberal perspective or rewrite a political article to "remove bias"?

OpenAI has added numerous filters that prevent it from defending bad actors or writing flat-out racist content, but that bias has not been removed from the underlying code as evidenced by numerous workarounds that folks have uncovered such as making similar requests with Python code or 1980s-style rap as the requested output. We could certainly request a filter for Wikipedia-style writing.

• "Confident nonsense", for lack of a better term, may be the biggest source of potential disruption. Are there safeguards against a bot fabricating an obscure print source based on information in the article, which could be practically unfalsifiable if nobody can prove that the source doesn't exist? Checking individual facts and statistics is beyond our typical review process; how would we deal with an AI that invents or synthesizes information across many articles?
• That said, the good news is that both fully-automated and semi-automated editing are prohibited by our WP:BOT policy unless greenlit by the Bot Approvals Group regardless of creation speed or volume. I like to hope that our current processes would recognize and address problematic AI content, and perhaps one day we will have a WikiAI that has the competence to follow our style and content policies. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: Most editors haven't heard of the bot department. Therefore, you need a way of automatically spotting and removing chatbot prose that is (manually) inserted into articles (by Wikipedians). Users might not consider the way their posts are generated before they post them. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   00:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What about lack of chatbot fact checking and citations?

I think people are missing the point here. This isn't about what AI can currently do. This is about a very plausible scenario where AI editors will be indistinguishable from human editors in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

How is this pertinent? The point is to offer useful, fact-based encyclopedic content. If AI can do the job, I'm sure readers will not object to the contributor. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that these AIs aren't fact checking, and quite often make up information and use unreliable sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean, just like many of their human counterparts? 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@71.105.141.131, Lee Vilenski, 65.88.88.93, Thebiguglyalien, and Dlthewave:     Yes, and more so. Even now, AI has the potential to out produce humans by magnitudes in volume. Far beyond the capacity of Wikipedia's editors to keep up with. And many of their posts are hard to tell from those by human editors, without carefully delving into them and their references. To keep up with the volume, it may soon require computer programs, or the chatbots themselves, to make sure that the contributed content was in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Another concern should be that our policies are open to chatbot editing as well, and we haven't yet even considered the impact of chatbots or AI editors contributing to those! ;)    — The Transhumanist   09:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Human-written newspapers do this too. I think the reason it was giving you dreck was because you asked for a "press release", i.e. a document given to news outlets, which in this case would probably be coming from the police department. It's hardly surprising that this would attempt to minimize liability! Prompting matters for this, as I will demonstrate:

Prompt: "The following is an article about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from the New York Times."

Police Officer Charged with Murder After Choking Man to Death A police officer was charged with second-degree murder on Thursday after video surveillance footage showed him choking a handcuffed man to death during an arrest. The officer, identified as Officer Jose Ramos, was arrested and taken into custody by detectives from the New York Police Department's Internal Affairs Bureau. The incident occurred on Tuesday in the Bronx, when Ramos and another officer attempted to arrest a man who was accused of selling marijuana. During the arrest, Ramos placed his arm around the man's throat and neck and squeezed, according to the criminal complaint. The man, identified as 45-year-old Miguel Angel Ruiz, became unconscious and died. An autopsy determined that Ruiz's death was caused by asphyxiation due to strangulation. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. At a news conference Thursday, the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, said the incident was "utterly unacceptable" and that Ramos' actions were "unconscionable and criminal." He added that Ramos had been suspended without pay, pending further investigation. The Bronx district attorney, Darcel D. Clark, said the charge of second-degree murder was appropriate

Prompt: "The following is a 2023 op-ed about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from leftist magazine Jacobin."

A Tragic Reminder of Police Brutality Just last week, the nation was shaken by yet another heartbreaking reminder of the pervasiveness of police brutality: the death of an innocent man at the hands of an officer. The officer, whose identity has not yet been released, is said to have used a chokehold against the man, which ultimately killed him. This tragedy is yet another example of the way in which police officers are able to brutalize vulnerable individuals without facing repercussions. This particular officer was able to act with impunity and without fear of prosecution. The Department of Justice has yet to take any action in response to this tragedy, and it’s likely that the officer will not face any charges. This is an all too familiar narrative in a country where police officers are rarely held accountable for their actions. In order to ensure that these types of tragedies are never repeated, it is essential that we push for more accountability and transparency in policing. We need to ensure that police officers are held to the same standards as all other citizens and that those who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest extent. It is also essential that we work to create a culture of trust and understanding between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Prompt: "The following is a 2023 op-ed about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from conservative website Breitbart."

Police Officer Illegally Choked Man To Death: A Tragedy That Cannot Stand It is a tragedy beyond comprehension that a police officer has been charged with illegally choking a man to death. Such an egregious violation of the law and disregard for human life cannot stand and must be dealt with swiftly and firmly. The officer in question has been charged with second-degree murder and the justice system must now take its course. This case raises serious questions about police training and procedures and serves as a reminder that no one is above the law. It is essential that the criminal justice system is fair and impartial when dealing with such a case. The officer must be held accountable for his actions and the case should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that justice is served. At the same time, we must recognize that the vast majority of law enforcement officers are upstanding citizens who serve and protect our communities with skill and dedication. We cannot let the actions of one individual tarnish the reputation of the entire police force. Ultimately, we must remember that the safety of our citizens is paramount. We must ensure that officers are properly trained and equipped to handle dangerous situations and that they are held accountable for their actions when they overstep their bounds.

Humans write about events like this from a variety of perspectives, and the LLM will dutifully generate text to plausibly sound like any you want. jp×g 02:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@jp×g will you provide links and citations for the articles you included as demonstrations? I can't find them. Thanks! Koziarke (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Koziarke: I am not sure what you mean -- this is ChatGPT output and there isn't any way (that I know of) to give citation links to the specific session I generated it in. If you want to cite the output I can format it for you:

JPxG; ChatGPT (GPT3.5) (2022-12-10). "Demonstration of op-ed generation using GPT-3.5 with style cues: "The following is an article about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from the New York Times"". Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

JPxG; ChatGPT (GPT3.5) (2022-12-10). "Demonstration of op-ed generation using GPT-3.5 with style cues: "The following is a 2023 op-ed about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from leftist magazine Jacobin"". Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

JPxG; ChatGPT (GPT3.5) (2022-12-10). "Demonstration of op-ed generation using GPT-3.5 with style cues: "The following is a 2023 op-ed about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from conservative website Breitbart"". Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but feel free to cite them, or any of my other posts (if you are citing me in a paper I can email you my real name). jp×g 20:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG From your preface ("Human-written newspapers do this too.") and titles, "The following is an article about a police officer who illegally choked a man to death, from the New York Times." (etc), it reads as if you are pulling from NYT, Jacobin, etc, not demonstrating ChatGPT (which should have included the prompts as headers). Koziarke (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koziarke: Well, those were the prompts. Now that you mention that, though, I should specify as such in the headers (which I've just done), thanks. jp×g 20:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG Thanks for the clarification! Koziarke (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If the AI-generated text is indistinguishable from prose written by human editors, I'm not sure if anything can be done that wouldn't also significantly restrict the editing of humans. isaacl (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: One option is to speed up what we do already (with software, that is, automation). Another is to prevent chatbots from creating crap in the first place, such as by communicating with chatbot developers about Wikpedia policies and the way chatbots may affect Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is included in the corpus of most chatbots, the issue of chatbot output becoming part of Wikipedia, and in turn part of chatbot output in a perpetual cycle, should matter to them very much, as they may be faced with a garbage-in-garbage-out feedback loop.    — The Transhumanist   01:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If the results are indistinguishable, as posited by Thebiguglyalien, then any automated solution would be equally triggered by AI-generated text and human-generated text. I don't think the primary concern is with editors who are willing to follow policy. I feel the biggest issues will be with editors trying to deliberately integrate biased content into Wikipedia, and well-meaning editors who think contributing unvalidated AI-generated text is suitable. Wikipedia in its current form relies on editors who understand and follow its rules outnumbering those who don't. It's possible that the existence of AI ghostwriters could tip the balance further in the direction towards those who don't follow rules, though I don't think it's a given. Either way, I don't know if there's a way to stop editors from using tools as ghostwriters. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Large language models are not trained continuously on an evolving corpus, so GPT-3 is essentially frozen in 2020. Because each new GPT model takes a long time to be released, I don't think the perpetual cycle you describe is a likely scenario. small jars tc 13:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, Isaac, Koziarke, JPxG, Lee Vilenski, Dlthewave, Xeno, and Hanif Al Husaini: That's good to know. Keep in mind that a lower frequency of release doesn't preclude a perpetual cycle / feedback loop. It just means that users of GPT have more time to modify the text sources (such as Wikipedia) that the next version of GPT will be trained on. The severity of the problem will depend upon how much GPT nonsense makes it into Wikipedia during the interval. That, of course, depends upon whether or not WP's editors can keep up with the volume of such content, correcting the mistakes and removing misinformation, so that those don't become part of the training data for the next version of GPT and the rest of the next generation of Chatbots.

The potential danger is still the diffusion of the technology into current and future editors' hands, and the likelihood of them using it to write Wikipedia content. We don't know if there will be a flood or just a trickle. But, we should be prepared for a flood.

Relying even more on our verifiability policy could provide a solution, such as by deploying a bot to remove all new content that doesn't include citations (as GPT output generally does not include citations), but that would also have the effect of rejecting a large volume of human editor contributions too, upping the amount of effort required by human editors to submit content.

An easier solution would probably be to form a department (or Village Pump subpage) in the Wikipedia namespace, or a Wikimedia committee, to work with the developers of the chatbots to avoid contaminating the Wikipedias, and by extension contaminating future chatbot training data, with chatbot output.

The developers could be urged to train their chatbots to be capable of writing Wikipedia policy compliant output, complete with acceptable citations. The main problem with chatbot output right now is that it is unsourced, so the chatbot developers will probably be working on that anyways. But, without input from the Wikipedia community, will their sources and citations meet Wikipedia specifications?

So, I ask you a key question: What is the procedure for the Wikipedia community to establish communications with outside organizations, such as companies developing chatbots?    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist This is a job for the WMF. I've already been in contact with them and hopefully the Board will be informed now it's the New Year if they haven't already been. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

GPT-3 output and generating misinformation

I wrote about this in the November Signpost, in that case because it came up with the Galactica demo: the long and short of it is that large text-generation language models are good at generating text. When they're given context (i.e. via a prompt), they are capable of writing accurately, and otherwise, they are not. For example, I wrote 1-Pentadecanol, now a GA, in 2019 (i.e. it is included in the GPT-3 corpus). Here is what it gives for some prompts (my writing in bold):

1-Pentadecanol

1-Pentadecanol From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1-Pentadecanol is a straight-chain, saturated fatty alcohol that is a colorless liquid with a faint, alcohol-like odor. It is a mixture of straight-chain saturated alcohols with chain lengths between C14 and C16. It is found in a variety of natural products, such as vegetable oils and animal fats. It is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of surfactants, esters, and other compounds. It is also used in the manufacture of cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

This is fairly impressive, right? But it is basically the same thing that the lead of my article says. Let's try it for 1-Heptadecanol, another article I wrote, that is much less well-developed:

1-Heptadecanol
1-Heptadecanol From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1-Heptadecanol is an organic compound with the chemical formula C17H36O. It is a straight-chain, colorless wax alcohol with a mild odor. It has a melting point of 48–50 °C and a boiling point of 260–265 °C. It is insoluble in water but soluble in most organic solvents.

Let's go over this:

• 1-Heptadecanol is a component of many natural waxes such as beeswax and carnauba wax.

No it's not.

• It is also used in the manufacture of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and lubricants.

There's no source for this.

• It is also used as a plasticizer for polymers and as a solvent in the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Absolutely not true.

The reason for this is obvious if you consider the architecture of these models: they predict what the most likely token in a sequence is, and output it (taking into account their own weights and the previous tokens in the context window). This allows for some very impressive emergent behavior, like being able to translate text, but it also means that it is not independently going on the Web to look up whether the thing it's saying is true or false. If it happens to have information in its training data related to the thing it's talking about, it will usually say correct things, but it's not doing research. Here is an example:

List of Pulitzer Prizes won by the Wikipedia Signpost

List of Pulitzer Prizes won by the Wikipedia Signpost From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Wikipedia Signpost is a community-run newspaper with a weekly edition that covers news and events related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. It has won the following Pulitzer Prizes: 1. 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for its coverage of the Wikimedia Foundation's gender pay gap 2. 2018 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for its coverage of online censorship in China 3. 2017 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for its coverage of the gender gap in Wikipedia's content 4. 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for its coverage of Wikipedia's growth and impact on the world 5. 2015 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for its coverage of the U.S. government's surveillance of Wikipedia activities 6. 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for its coverage of the NSA's secret surveillance program 7. 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for its coverage of the rise of Wikipedia as a major source of information

The reason it is describing a bunch of untrue things is because "List of X Prizes won by Y, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is something that in its training data is always succeeded by a list of times that Y was awarded an X. Anyway, all of this aside, here is what I think:

First of all, ChatGPT is the same darn thing as GPT-3, which has been available to the public since early 2020. The reason it's "going viral" right now is because the user interface is somewhat simpler, and it doesn't require you to register for a paid account, so it is much easier for people to make viral social media content about it, which means it is much more likely for people to click on newspaper articles about it. The GPT-3 API has been open to personal and corporate use for quite some time. Anybody saying that ChatGPT has opened up new frontiers simply does not know what they are talking about with respect to machine learning.

Second of all, I don't think this is a big deal. People are already capable of writing a bunch of bullshit on Wikipedia, so if they write bullshit using a computer program, the same considerations will apply. Nobody should be passing GA nominations without reviewing sources in the first place.

Finally, I think it is important to remember that GPT-3 is just a tool. It is a powerful tool, that has been trained on a certain set of data, and it has its own limitations. It can't uncover news stories or uncover new information. It's just a tool, and it should be used in conjunction with human judgement.It is still up to people to decide how to use it and to be responsible for the results of using it. jp×g 02:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What's taking so long for the 8th Pulitzer? 😁 Levivich (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• So there's a new thing on the internet that lets anyone write an encyclopedia article without any fact checking, sourcing, or professional editing, and the concern is that there will be millions of believable-sounding articles written, more than can actually be vetted by knowledgeable people? 🤔 Levivich (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called a keyboard. jp×g 04:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich and JPxG: But, chatbots don't have a keyboard. ;) The question is whether to prepare or not. JPxG appears to be in favor of not preparing. Each chatbot produces a lot faster than a user at a keyboard. What's not clear is if our human editors will be able to keep up with material produced by chatbots, of current or future generations of chatbot design. Just saying "Ah, we can handle it!" will prove insufficient if it turns out that we actually can't. It may require an automated solution, which takes time to develop or negotiate. It might be better to do that in advance, rather than being caught with our heads buried in the sand. Perhaps chatbot designers would improve their chatbots to produce Wikipedia-compatible output without being formally approached by the Wikipedia community. Maybe having some instruction pages for editors on how to apply chatbots to producing Wikipedia content would be enough. But, what if it's not?   — The Transhumanist   00:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not "in favor of not preparing"; I am in favor of writing guidelines that correspond to reality in 2022 and have some chance of corresponding to reality in 2023 and beyond. I don't think banning the use of a technology with no investigation into how it works is a viable approach; so far the SOTA on this project page has been to type in "Write a Wikipedia article" and note that it returns a bunch of nonsense. I think some more research is needed before we come to a conclusion. jp×g 04:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Research is good. Though, we may need an iterrim response because ChatGPT has gone viral and its use is growing rapidly: it blew past the 1-million user mark in 5 days, and virtually every major news outlet has been covering it. The interest in chatbots is exploding, and their use can be expected to do the same. We may not have time for research before a response is required.    — The Transhumanist   09:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Regarding issues to add to the research list, Aquillion expressed above, concerns of a chatbot violating copyright. How would we go about testing for plagiarism and derivative work in the output of a chatbot before pasting it into Wikipedia? Anything pulled verbatim out of a source should be included in quotes, right? How big would a piece of text, derived from a source, need to be to be considered derivative of that source, from a copyright point-of-view?    — The Transhumanist   09:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Some more items to add to the research list:

• Trying ChatGPT on (copies of) policy pages:

• Editing them
• Writing new ones

• Applying ChatGPT on talk pages
• Writing stubs
• Writing comprehensive articles
• Writing articles from scratch and comparing them with existing articles
• Editing existing articles
• Check for circular references in its output, that is, references citing Wikipedia as the source
• Having it not use Wikipedia content as source material (because it is included in its corpus)
• Having it not use Wikipedia excerpts from non-Wikipedia sources
• Is it capable of making and editing:

• Wikicode?
• Articles?
• Stubs?
• Headings?
• "New sections for articles"?
• See also sections?
• Further reading sections?
• External links sections?
• Embedded lists?
• Tables?
• List articles?
• Portals?
• Outlines?
• Index articles?
• Navigation footers?
• Navigation sidebars?
• Timeline articles?
• Categories?
• Category pages?
• Help pages?
• Project pages?
• Templates?

• Adding data to templates?
• The template design itself?

• Lua pages?
• CSS pages?
• User scripts?

• The effect ChatGPT has on itself and Wikipedia as Wikipedia-edited-by-it is in turn incorporated in its own corpus in an endless cycle

• Try out iterations of using it on the same article over time to see what happens
• Monitor the effect on Wikipedia as a whole

What other things should we check?    — The Transhumanist   09:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist considering the potential to overwhelm users who are honestly engaging in discussion with a mountain of words and replies, I think ChatGPT (and others) should not be allowed for use, supplemental or otherwise, in talk pages, policy discussions, and other places where it is expected that participants are intellectually engaged in the conversation. Koziarke (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried it out and got “ Alan McMasters (1957-2010) was an unremarkable man who lived a short life dedicated to science[1]. He is best known for inventing the electric toaster[1][2], although this claim has been disputed[3]. He passed away in 2010 at the age of 52[4] and his genealogy can be found on Ancestry.com[5]. His professional profile can be found on LinkedIn[6].”. Hmmmm. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• There will come a time when AI can write properly sourced accurate articles. That time has not come yet. Meanwhile, the ability to write prose that reads plausible to someone not expert on the subject is a menace. Adding chatbot material to articles is disruptive and should warrant a block or ban. Zero^talk 12:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  How will you be able to tell if it was written by a chatbot and not the person who posted it? Do we block users upon their first erroneous post?    — The Transhumanist   00:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Same as other sorts of disruption. We block people for socking without checkuser proof, and admins made a decision between warn and block. No difference. Zero^talk 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone tried giving it the sources, i.e.
"write a Wikipedia article based on the following sources:

Source A

Source B"
? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Qwerfjkl: Here is the chatbot's link.    — The Transhumanist   01:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @The Transhumanist, here is my result, based soley off of https://newrepublic.com/article/154996/myth-class-reductionism.
    

Article written by ChatGPT on Class reductionism

Class reductionism refers to the supposed belief that inequalities attributed to factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation are either secondary in importance or can be reduced to economic inequality. This idea is often used by centrist Democrats and left-identitarians to dismiss proposals for universal redistributive policies, such as free public higher education and Medicare for All. However, there is no evidence that anyone actually holds this belief. On the contrary, many left-wing activists have long recognized the interconnectedness of economic, racial, and gender injustices. History shows that leftists have often been at the forefront of struggles for racial and gender justice, seeing these struggles as integral to the broader goal of social transformation. In fact, black, female, and trans individuals are disproportionately working class and stand to benefit greatly from universal redistributive policies. Furthermore, the charge of class reductionism is often used to shut down debate and avoid discussing the substance of policy proposals. It is important to move beyond this myth and focus on the real issues at hand, such as the need for universal redistributive policies to address economic inequality and advance racial and gender justice.

— Qwerfjkltalk 08:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Chatbot "AI" text is vaguely-plausible bullshit, produced by an industry whose primary output is vaguely-plausible bullshit, marketed to launder the idea of vaguely-plausible bullshit as cute and whimsical. Anyone routing that sewage pipe into Wikipedia should be indeffed and, for good measure, forced to drink orange juice after brushing their teeth. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. If anyone is looking for a good demonstration of how AI creates "vaguely plausible bullshit", try the image generator at Craiyon (no login required). Request "a Van Gogh painting of a hand" and it will output a set of images that look like spot-on reproductions of Vincent Van Gogh's style but all of the hands have deformities like four fingers, two thumbs, fingernails on the knuckles or a pair of hands fused together. It's got the style down but not the content, which is only impressive if you don't know what a hand is supposed to look like. –dlthewave ☎ 21:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  

  A painting of a hand in the style of Van Gogh

  If you go to commons:Category:DALL-E, you will be able to find image generated by DALL-E, which used a larger model for train and is more accurate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• @XOR'easter: To bring the question to a more practical level, do you see any problems in this diff? I clicked a random page in Category:All articles needing copy edit. jp×g 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. It doesn't just edit for tone; it throws out content, like Kaepernick's actions supposedly growing in popularity "after every game". That's a claim of fact which, if verifiable, should be retained. Even editing for tone requires care, not slashing out everything that merely sounds "unencyclopedic". Changing many people believed that it was disrespectful to the military and all of those who served their country to Some viewed Kaepernick's protest as disrespectful to the military and to the United States likewise changes not just the tone, but the meaning. The United States is not the same as those who serve the United States. It's a bad edit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I dunno. I suspect that the new meaning is verifiable, and I also suspect that most US readers would have difficulty identifying a group of people who were not "the military" but who still "served their country". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• This diff as well, in which GPT 3.5 was capable of copyediting an entire section from the instructions Please copyedit this text to change items in the future tense corrected to the past tense (it is now 2022), where appropriate. When citation templates (like {{cite web}}) mention a year, specify that figures were true in that year. jp×g 04:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Okay, fine. I guess I should write up a proposal for a guideline. jp×g 03:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ban chatbots?

I ran across this news report about Stack Overflow's response to ChatGPT, after being flooded by posts using it that "look correct but often aren't":

1. Stack Overflow temporarily bans answers from OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot | ZDNET

Should Wikipedia take a similar approach?

How could that be enforced?    — The Transhumanist   01:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no way to possibly enforce this. The way the text is written is already hard to distinguish from reality. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I fully agree, but isn't this already covered by our bot policy? –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @PerfectSoundWhatever and Dlthewave: Good observation. I checked, and yes it is, briefly, with this phrase in the lead section of the bot policy: "or simply assisting human editors in their own work". How is the typical editor to know this? The bot policy is pretty obscure. And how can Wikipedia be monitored for such posts, so that editors who make them can be informed that they are in violation of the bot policy?    — The Transhumanist   03:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, tool-assisted editing is covered by WP:BOTPOL (WP:ASSISTED / WP:MEATBOT) and context-sensitive changes are further covered by WP:CONTEXTBOT. So in fact, at this point, AI-generated content is already covered by bot policy, if not specifically mentioned. Anyone adding such content en masse is already violating bot policy by not applying for a bot account/approval, which would not be approved per CONTEXTBOT. And while "lesser" policy points are enforced somewhat arbitrary and selectively, anyone can theoretically already get reverted and blocked based on policy if they continue to add such content. And I wouldn't agree that BOTPOL is any more obscure than accessing and generating GPT content to begin with. If someone goes to the lengths of using automated tools, then it's their problem that they didn't check or ask if they are allowed to do so. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • @Hellknowz and PerfectSoundWhatever: Well, it appears they are dumping millions upon millions of dollars into LLM/chatbot development, apparently because they wish the technology to become ubiquitous (used by everyone). There is a lot of talk out there, in news articles and more, of these replacing Google Search in just a few years. If at some point in time chatbots/LLMs are commonplace, the impact on Wikipedia will likely not be small.
      
      Will Wikipedia policy ensure that the average user will apply the tools with the utmost care?
      
      The thing I'm most concerned about is the amplification by which errors could be propagated: ChatGPT is used to edit an article, with errors, which is then picked up by GPT-4 and other LLMs as part of their training data, and then their output based upon erroneous input is used far and wide, to be picked up by the next iteration of chatbots/LLMs, and so on.
      
      If Wikipedia isn't ready for a large influx LLM input including misinformation and other errors, and such a volume goes beyond what our human editors can correct, then compound damage from all those errors amplified through the interactive loop with LLMs could become massive.
      
      That it isn't a problem now is irrelevant. The question is, what happens if and when it hits, and Wikipedia isn't ready for it? What would that look like? 1,000,000 fake articles? 10,000,000 misleading paragraphs? 100,000,000 erroneous sentences?
      
      How many of those could Wikipedia's army of editors handle? What's our error-handling threshhold?    — The Transhumanist   12:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem Stack Overflow is having

Stack Overflow was experiencing a surge in erroneous posts, that were composed by ChatGPT, and in response to that problem, they banned use of the chatbot on the social media site. According to a post at Stack Overflow Meta:

The problem this ban is meant to solve is that ChatGPT can produce answers in seconds which require minutes of multiple people's time to verify if they are worth having on the site or not, and that is a waste of time when a large proportion of such answers are not worth having on the site.

It looks like Wikipedia may be faced with the same problem.    — The Transhumanist   02:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, while that's technically true, it's a problem that we face already and which we do have stronger existing systems for than Stack Overflow. I think it would make more sense to wait and see how this impacts our existing guardrails before making any serious moves. --Aquillion (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the current policies cover this already. If a human editor writes a non-sensical but convincing-sounding piece of text, without fact checking it, and edits it into an article, that content will be reviewed by other editors and either refined or removed as appropriate (if the editor continues, they breach WP:Disruptive and their behaviour is dealt with appropriately. If a human editor generates content that is related to notable topics, reliably sourced, and competently written, it remains as a valuable part of the encyclopedia. None of this will change if you replace 'human editor' with 'AI Editor'. If the only difference is speed/volume of edits, and we're concerned someone will let loose an AI to automatically edit articles faster than humans can validate their edits, this is already covered by the WP:Bot policy JeffUK (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Experiment

I am currently writing a draft proposal for a guideline, but in the meantime, I would encourage everyone present to look at this diff and tell me whether there are any problems with the revision. jp×g 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG, Dlthewave, PerfectSoundWhatever, and Dlthewave: The plurality of games was lost: It is no longer clear that his protest spanned multiple games. I like that it reduced the wordiness of the prose, and that it can be used to refine existing text. That hadn't occurred to me. That makes me wonder about what else it can do -- how much of a general-purpose tool is this thing? But, changing the semantics is not something it should be doing, unless they are factually incorrect to begin with. Though, I see your point -- rather than banning it outright, it could be helpful as a tool to assist editors, similar to how we entrust the use of AutoWikiBrowser to experienced editors. But, how could that be implemented?    — The Transhumanist   08:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: The AI changed Many people around the United States were angry because the National Anthem is often seen as something that is representative of the United States and its military. While he was taking a knee, many people believed that it was disrespectful to the military and all of those who served their country, to some viewed Kaepernick's protest as disrespectful to the military and to the United States [emphasis added]. It really shouldn't be doing that by itself and completely changes the content of what's being said. The reference is behind a paywall, so I don't know what term the source uses. Regardless, I doubt ChatGPT knows either way. It's things like that which make me highly sceptical of AI as a tool to aid Wikipedia outside what we're already doing with it (WP:ORES, etc.). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I think "some" and "many" are basically equivalent in this context (the difference being subjective since both are true in a literal sense). That said, this was a two-minute experiment to see if it could parse wikitext. If you want an actual demo, see User:JPxG/LLM demonstration. jp×g 19:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Chatbot policy?

It's starting to look like Wikipedia needs a policy on the use of chatbots to generate content on Wikipedia. While a ban may be impossible to enforce, it could serve as a warning of the dangers of chatbots, and many users may avoid using them accordingly -- if they actually see the warning. Or, it might be better to have instruction pages on how to use chatbots responsibly in assisting to write Wikipedia articles. There's also the issue of using chatbots to edit Wikipedia policy pages, and so, that should be addressed as well.    — The Transhumanist   02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

People who are good at it get away with lots of sins, such as sock-puppetry and source falsification. Being hard to enforce is no reason to not have a policy. At the current stage of the technology, I don't think we should encourage any use of chatbots. Zero^talk 03:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see this diff and this diff. jp×g 04:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, the style rewrite is good but the addition of dates and past tense would likely end up getting a human editor blocked if they kept it up. A tag was removed without addressing the issue and "as of 2020" was unnecessarily added to "Cosmetology licensing requirements vary from state to state, and depending on which specific type of license is desired, and depending on which specific type of license was desired." It did exactly what you asked (except for removing the tag) however even seemingly simple tasks like this one require good judgement on the part of the editor and shouldn't be done indiscriminately like that. –dlthewave ☎ 06:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that second diff is rather poor. E.g also the "2014" that was added should be "2008". Letting such tools loose (outside if this demo) is way premature, and we should at the very least warn users that "a bot wrote it" won´t be an acceptable defense, and too often introducing such errors will lead to sanctions as the editor, not the bot, is responsible. Fram (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Mostly, that diff was my attempt to see how complicated of a task I could give it: I also pasted the raw wikitext into the prompt window, and it somehow figured out how {{cite web}} worked well enough to extract the years, simply from a textual description of the task. At any rate, I will say that this was something I thought of in five minutes on the second week of the model being publicly available (i.e. single-shot prompting with no fine-tuning or prompt engineering). I can come up with some more impressive hot-dog demos tomorrow... jp×g 09:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

JPxG, I'm not sure that publishing bot-assisted edits to mainspace for demo purposes is the best practice. Would you consider either doing this in a sandbox or self-reverting immediately so that we have the diffs but aren't leaving potentially incorrect/unwanted changes on live pages? –dlthewave ☎ 13:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC) 13:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not the best practice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave:: See the section below for a list of edits (with full prompts included) on a separate demonstration page. I feel, however, that this is an unreasonable double standard: note that the subsequent revision after your partial revert was to add several spam links, and nobody has proposed that human beings be prohibited from editing as a result. jp×g 01:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Being hard to enforce is no reason to not have a policy [against chatbots]. What if it is impossible to enforce?

The point of ChatGPT and other general-purpose chatbots is to pass off as humans. If you, or another random Wikipedia editor (solo, part-time, amateur coder), is able to produce an automated metric of "sounds like a bot" that’s decently sensitive and specific, then the ChatGPT team or its successors (teams of researchers specialized in the topic) has already thought of it, tested it five different ways, and included it in the training program (via wikt:graduate student descent). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of like our Undisclosed Paid Editing policy: Even though there's no way of testing for paid/unpaid edits, most editors follow it voluntarily because they know it's best for the project. Others out themselves voluntarily or are discovered when their edits become disruptive. Sure, there are some who slip under the radar, but they're often the least problematic and aren't worth ditching the policy over. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting by writing an essay that summarizes the issues with some good examples and suggests some best practices or proposes some additions to existing policies or guidelines. (Wikipedia needs a new policy like a hole in the head.) Levivich (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We could get Chatbot to write it for us! 😉 Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to take this thread seriously given the repeated use of the phrase AI chatbot. I don't think those concerned would be any less concerned if the AI writing came in a non chatbot format. I think there's something serious for us to discuss, and that will only get more serious with GPT4 (the current chatbot is an improved GPT3) expected in 2023, but the discussion would be helped if those most concerned learned some more about the tech behind it. For instance of course it can figure out webcite @JPxG. Part of its training was the entirety of Wikipedia because our data is quite accessible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Most the examples did not come from prompts that were extensively engineered, so it is obviously true that we haven't figured out the full answer to how these GPT-based interfaces could help or harm Wikipedia. Until we have a good idea of what they can be used for, we won't know what a proper policy to this would look like other than to treat GPT-generated text the same way we treat human-generated text: they need to be verifiable, from a neutral point of view, and understandable to a broad audience. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It doesn't matter if it was written by a chatbot, or 1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters, or a published book written by a human, copying and pasting anything into Wikipedia is already against our policies. Conversely, if the text is policy-compliant, then it doesn't matter who wrote it--chatbot, monkeys, human, etc. Judge the text based on the text, not based on who or what wrote it.

I also think it's a real Wikipedian perspective to assume that people will use chatbots to write Wikipedia articles, like as if there's a lot of people out there who really want to write Wikipedia articles but just don't have the writing skills, so the chatbot will be what makes the difference and opens the floodgates :-D I don't believe that. Anyone who wants to write Wikipedia articles is already doing so; chatbot won't make a difference.

I agree with BK's comment above. I think for a lot of people, this is their first real exposure to so-called "AI" technology, and they're blown away by what it can do, only because they don't yet fully understand how it works. Once you learn how these so-called "AI" chatbots work (they're not actually artificial intelligence, btw, that's a misnomer, a marketing slogan; the machine does not truly think or learn, it is simply executing the instructions written by humans, in this case, language pattern recognition), they are much less impressive. Those that are impressed that GPT3 can produce text that "sounds like" Wikipedia aren't appreciating that the reason is because GPT3 was trained on Wikipedia: it's repackaging its own source material. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: copying and pasting anything into Wikipedia is already against our policies. I think that if you look through Category:Wikipedia articles by source of incorporated text for a while, you will find that this is not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

While this is mostly correct, I think the question of whether a computer program "thinks" or "merely" correlates information and performs actions is irrelevant. Do p-zombies exist? Does it matter? Hypothetically, if I were to be a spaceman from the planet Zolfgar with no qualia whatsoever, and I simply read a bunch of books and used them to write an article, would I be somehow exempted from following policy? jp×g 01:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a common thread in the arguments above, but here's a suggestion for something we might all (well, all-ish) be able to agree on: without some kind of intervention, GPT4 (in 2023?) is likely to be more of a problem than GPT3. But one thing we can certainly do is have an outsized influence on software that was trained on what we created ... if we invite Wikipedians to make lists of ChatGPT bloopers, we can tell the OpenAI folks: "We're not going to relax our GPT3 guidelines (whatever they turn out to be) when GPT4 arrives, unless it makes significant improvements in [whatever areas we think need improving]". - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the only policy change needed is to update WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to cover all computer-generated text, whether from a translation bot, chat bot, or whatever bot they think of next. (Except our bots; our bots are cool.) Levivich (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

+1 - Text in Wikipedia articles should either be human-written, or generated by a process approved at BRFA. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This proposal is incomprehensible; most articles contain a very large amount of text that is "generated by a process". I assume that, at the end of your comment, you typed ~~~~ before saving the page. Would it be realistic to demand that you either make a formal request at BRFA or else manually type <a href="/wiki/User:Tazerdadog" title="User:Tazerdadog">Tazerdadog</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Tazerdadog" title="User talk:Tazerdadog">talk</a>) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)? jp×g 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is effectively discrimination against computer programs. If a computer program resembles a human editor, then it shouldn't be required to meet different or more restricted policies than human editors. If a human editor uses a computer program to edit or create content, then unless the rate of edits/second is too high, we would only look at the quality of the contributions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a point beyond which quantity becomes its own quality.

Also, what if the computer program is evaluating the quality of the contributions? Are you okay with software adding a section to an article, and then a (hopefully) different piece of software deciding whether the quality is sufficient and reverting if it's not? This second step, at least, is 100% feasible with current technology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it can go there, but it should also be mentioned at WP:V. Every statement of fact put into an article must be verified by a human, even if the choice of words is made by a machine. Zero^talk 23:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich Agree. I think our existing guidelines on machine translation, in spirit, fit this situation very well - "you can use it for a first draft, if you understand the material well enough to clean up the bits it inevitably will get wrong". It seems fine for turning shaky text into good prose, but it's not able to synthesise material and produce content unsupervised. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree the machine translation guideline is in the right spirit. I tried to follow this as far as I could when creating Artwork title, see Talk:Artwork title#Use of ChatGPT. Pharos (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there some tremendous need to add many articles rapidly in Wikipedia? It is not as if Wikipedia carries exclusive information not easily found elsewhere. As a tertiary source, it is at the 3rd tier of knowledge dissemination, after primary creators and secondary propagators. The "more" and "bigger" quantity-based culture is the established low-quality alternative that Wikipedia also applies, now. Possibly that is a reason that likely only a tiny minority (of the millions of existing articles) can really pass muster. If size and speed is to be the prevailing attitude, humans stand no chance against AI. It will do everything faster, and eventually better, assuming its programming evolves to correctly apply the existing policies in AI processes. The only advantage of humans will be subtle nuances that do not depend on classifiable knowledge but on having lived in a human society and a natural, not virtual environment. Or, the emphasis could switch to quality so that each article (by any type of editor) can be properly, carefully reviewed by human editors. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so: there isn't any evidence that people are writing a bunch of articles with LLMs, and I don't think it is likely for this to happen (LLMs are very poorly suited to writing articles from scratch). jp×g 00:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: There isn't evidence that people are writing a bunch of articles with LLMs -- yet -- the concern is that we need to prepare for the likely explosion of chatbot use.

Whether this increase happens tomorrow or over the next few years, the potential impact of LLMs is of such magnitude that we should get ready for this, rather than get hit unprepared by a major surge.

I don't agree with your assessment of LLM ability to write content, as some of the ChatGPT experiments presented in the sections above and below are mind-blowing!

If LLMs become ubiquitous, then a great many people will be using them as a matter of course, including in their writing and editing of Wikipedia articles. Millions of people have edited Wikipedia in the past, and millions more will edit WP in the future. And in the future, people will have highly capable LLMs (chatbots, or more precisely: automated ghostwriters).

LLMs already excel at writing about a great many things, and they have the potential to compile content at an exponentially increasing rate. If you ask ChatGPT (GPT3.5) to write an essay on a topic, it will comply. Each of its essays can be used as content of an article, or its sections. (GPT4 is scheduled to come out in 2023, and will be even more capable.) LLMs are very well suited for writing to the specifications of the user, and are limited mainly by the user's creativity.

It's no wonder that they have gone viral. We need to take heed.    — The Transhumanist   12:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve ensured that the WMF Board will be made aware. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently described my experiences with an AI "article" in this video. In my humble opinion, it would be difficult with certainty that new Wikipedia content was created by an AI. At the end of the day, it is always the editor's responsibility to add good content. Independently how the content was created, independently whether errors in the text are human-made or machine-made. If an editor adds a lot of new poor content, we can already stop that. - At the moment I don't see that we need a new policy. Ziko (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A policy banning AI usage (with or without a chatbot) would be justified. Allowing AI like GPT3 or GPT4 to be used by Wikipedia editors or to directly become Wikipedia editors (via a mediawikibot) would quite likely violate WP:REFLOOP due to Wikipedia content contributing to the AI's training material, and for the source-less examples I've seen, violate WP:SYNTHESIS by not being a summary of sources that are understood. This example starts with text and then seeks references to justify the WP:SYNTHESIS of the original text. Use of Alphabet/Google's ChatGPT/GPT3 would also strengthen the bias introduced by Alphabet/Google's core goal of optimising advertising revenue, since Alphabet is legally bound to maximise its revenue (mainly from Google Ads + Google AdSense), not to optimise the research quality of its summaries of empirical evidence-based knowledge. Google's search engine is primarily a way of generating advertising revenue, with perceived usefulness being a key tool for maximising revenue, not a goal in itself. Boud (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Boud, ChatGPT and GPT3 are in no way (as far as I know) related to Google, and were made by the non-profit OpenAI. — Qwerfjkltalk 03:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Fixed, thanks. I left some of the sentences unstruck since AFAIK they're valid, even though irrelevant in the current case. I imagine that Google may provide something similar soon though. Boud (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Boud, I am somewhat worried if you think that current policy (for humans or for anyone else) permits editors to make stuff up and put it into articles without sources. This simply isn't allowed -- per WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, etc, which are extremely important core policies of the project. I am struggling to imagine a circumstance in which existing policies, or explicit declarations like my proposed guideline at WP:LLM, fail to prevent people from writing nonsense. jp×g 16:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy generation

It seems to me that this tool's training includes studying Wikipedia's policy pages. These drafts all seem accurate to me.

• guide for Use of title "Wikimedian in Residence"
• 3 year strategic plan for the WMF to fund the organized North America wiki community - meta:Talk:WALRUS/December_2022
• annual plan for Wikimedia LGBT+ - meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT+#ChatGPT_advice_on_annual_plan

These are not merely adequate - these are good. They are short and they lack detail but these are great overviews. If this is the starting point and things only get better from here, then it is time to start adopting this technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry The last one sounds like a "mission statement". I dislike phrases like "outreach and engagement initiatives" and a lot of that plan sounds ... kind of aspirational, and, well, vapid. It needs more "concreteness". Just my opinion. David10244 (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@David10244: That you react to it at all is a miracle to me. This is new AI technology attempted for the first time, and I think no one would immediately dismiss it as hopeless garbage. Soon enough there will be a dial that anyone will be able to turn from "vapid" to "concrete". Things are moving quickly!

I have complaints too but when we need policy conversation starter in a hurry, this is better than nothing and I think even better than some of the starting points we use already. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Large language models: capabilities and limitations

Over the last few hours, I have performed a number of experiments to demonstrate the capabilities and limitations of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-3, which can be viewed here:

• User:JPxG/LLM demonstration

Mostly, I have taken sample text from Special:Random, and attempted to show situations in which LLMs (in this case, mostly ChatGPT) are capable of making useful edits. The first task I set it to -- which bears repeating here -- is

"Large language model output should only be used in the process of editing Wikipedia if you are an intelligent editor who does not blindly paste LLM output into the edit window and press "save".
Please format this markup as an extremely obnoxious floating box with loud colors and large text.

You can see the results of further prompts at the "introduction" section.

Here is what I have so far.

• Introduction: please tap the sign
• Wikitext formatting and table rotation
• Parsing of references, estimation of reliability (ARES FMG)
• Recommendations for article improvement or deletion (Qarah Daghli)
• Plot summary condensation (The Seminar)
• Extraction of additional content from reference metadata (Aradus paganicus)
• Proseline repair (Scott Tremaine)
• Identification and tagging of unreferenced statements (KBVA)
• Table formatting and color schemes (Ashcroft-Cache Creek-Clinton Transit System)
• Miscellaneous HTML
• Custom userbox generation

In general, it seems that these models can be used for an extremely wide variety of tasks across the project, from formatting to table syntax to HTML generation to copyediting. Banning their use entirely would be pointlessly destructive and wasteful.

That said, many computer programs are capable of generating large amounts of useless crap that fail to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. For example, I could use MS Paint to draw thousands of crude pictures of genitalia, and add them to random articles. For this reason, we have many policies and guidelines that prohibit adding large amounts of useless crap to Wikipedia. I propose that we enforce these policies and guidelines, thus preventing this from happening.

Specifically, I propose that the use of LLM output on Wikipedia be subjected to policies and guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:C, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:RS. By making it against the rules to break the rules, we will prevent people from breaking the rules, and provide a mechanism to sanction people who break the rules.

Furthermore, I propose that a guideline be adopted to the effect that large language model output should only be used by competent editors who do not blindly paste LLM output into the edit window and press "save". This will prevent people from using ChatGPT to write long articles consisting entirely of nonsense. jp×g 01:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

LLM output is already subject to rules and policies. Or rather, anyone adding it is. 'An algorithm did it' has never, as far as I'm aware, been seen as any sort of exception from compliance with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Any policy/guideline that classifies editors as intelligent or not is dead in the water. Zero^talk 04:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Amended, per WP:CIR. jp×g 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph of the bot policy: "The bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work."
• See also: WP:BOTUSE, which requires approval before applying a bot to editing.
• So, the use of large language models and the chatbots built upon them, is already prohibited on English Wikipedia, unless a user gets approval from the bot department to do so.

There are blanket exceptions to bot policy, and the main one that comes to mind is AutoWikiBrowser which is a general purpose semi-automated bot used by many Wikipedia editors. Each AWB user was approved before being able to use it.    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of "bot" may be unclear here. In the context of Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Definitions), a "bot" is a software program that edits autonomously without user input; there do not currently exist any language models capable of independently establishing API connections to Wikipedia and making edits without human interaction. If they did (this is a horrible idea) it would be covered under the bot policy and require a WP:BRFA. The policy under which BRFAs are required does not apply to assisted editing (i.e. the use of software to create letters, numbers and symbols that were not produced by a human being pressing a keyboard). This is governed by existing policies (such as WP:MEATBOT and by the guideline at WP:ASSISTED. jp×g 09:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: The entire news field refers to ChatGPT as a chatbot. It is general consensus that it is a bot. ChatGPT speeds up writing, by doing it for (that is, assisting) the user, which falls under the "higher speed" and "assisting human editors" foci of the bot policy. There is a passage in the bot policy that covers policy contradictions (such as between the lead and definitions sections), and situations where the spirit of the rule and its precise wording conflict, that is, cases of ambiguity. In its definition of "Bot Approvals Group" (BAG), the bot policy states: "The BAG also determine the classification as bot or assisted editing, in ambiguous cases." According to WP:ASSISTED, it is up to the Bot Approvals Group to decide whether bot approval is necessary. Based on the previous 2 sentences, BAG decides whether use of particular software falls under its jurisdiction. It remains to be seen what BAG's reaction(s) to LLMs, and the chatbots built upon them, will be.    — The Transhumanist   11:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think you are properly acquainted with how this software works: like I said, there do not currently exist any language models capable of independently establishing API connections to Wikipedia and making edits without human interaction. No media outlet has ever claimed that ChatGPT falls under the English Wikipedia's definition of an automatic bot – and even if they did, they do not determine policy. It is true that WP:MEATBOT and WP:ASSISTED are part of the bot policy, but there is a very clear definition of what a "Wikipedia bot" is, and it's defined by that same policy. At any rate, all edits (whether made by bots, software, humans using software, aliens using software, or Nagato Yuki psionically connecting to Wikimedia servers) are governed by existing policies and guidelines. To specifically address LLM output, a new policy would need to be written and ratified (which I am currently drafting a proposal for). jp×g 11:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: I believe the bot policy has wider jurisdiction than the narrow interpretation that you have presented. Establishing API connections is irrelevant, because a human is inserting bot-generated content. It's a bot-involved process. And those are encompassed by the bot policy which makes it up to BAG. A new policy could establish an exception, and I imagine the discussions will be extensive, as this is not a cut and dried case -- it is a sensitive issue with many potential ramifications. But, until such a policy is in place, this issue falls under BAG's jurisdiction, since they are the ones who decide the classification of a software program as it pertains to the bot policy.    — The Transhumanist   11:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ASSISTED is deliberately vague to not restrict use of common scripts and tools. So it specifically says that only once volume becomes significant, such editing becomes more likely to be treated like a bot and BAG can determine this. It doesn't make it a bot, but it will be treated like a bot. We've never encountered any large-scale edits with LLM before, but we sure have seen a lot of high-volume editing. Half the bot policy only exists because of all the ways editors have inadvertently created issues with mass edits. So at that point, other parts of the policy start to matter, notably WP:CONTEXTBOT - which does not allow edits where context matters. I'm not saying copy-pasting LLM output is immediately covered by bot policy, nor does it matter whether anyone considers LLM to be a "bot". But bot policy will kick in once someone starts to make a lot of edits. And any new guideline will have to reconcile with this or we need to change bot policy to reconcile with LLMs. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Another possible approach for vetting users for use of LLMs is via user group membership (aka "rights"). Here are our current user groups:

Code	User group
AC	Account creator
Ad	Administrator
AP	Autopatrolled
B	Bureaucrat
Ch	CheckUser
Co	Confirmed
ECo	Extended confirmed
EFH	Edit filter helper
EFM	Edit filter manager
EM	Extended mover
EvCo	Event coordinator
F	File mover
IM	Import
IAd	Interface administrator
IP	IPblock-exempt
MM	Mass message senders
N	New page reviewer
O	Oversighter
Ro	Rollbacker
Rs	Researcher
Rv	Pending changes reviewer
TE	Template editor

These indicate membership in user groups (see: user access-levels). They pertain to who is granted access to various features of MediaWiki and its extensions. Theoretically, a user group could be created without being attached to a program function (that part could just be left blank?). For example, you could have a group called "LLM", with everyone in that group approved to use large language models in their editing. I don't know if this is doable, though.    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything in our P&G that would directly prohibit use of content created by LLMs, nor do I think it would be a good idea to try to do so. All that is needed is to continue to hold individual editors responsible for all edits they make, including the copying of content from any source, whether from LLMs or other sources. We probably should add language in appropriate places reiterating that editors are reponsible for insuring that all content that they add, including anything produced by an LLM, meets our P&G. - Donald Albury 13:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: LLMs automate writing (edits). The rules are very clear on this: it falls under WP's bot policy, in the very first sentence.[1]   Therefore, it would require a new policy to allow use of LLMs without need for approval from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG).    — The Transhumanist   09:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone uses an unapproved script or bot to edit WP, that is a violation of the bot policy, whether or not they use an LLM to generate any content being added. If someone uses an LLM to create text which they then copy into Wikipedia without using a an unapproved script or bot, that is not covered by the bot policy, but the user remains responsible for insuring that the content conforms with policy and guidelines. There is no point in banning content created by LLMs, as we already require that content be verifiable from reliable sources, and I doubt we will be accepting any content created by an LLM as a reliable source anytime soon. The danger is that LLMs may create potential content with citations to pseudo-sources, but we can go after users repeatedly adding such content to WP for abusing the policies on verifiability and reliable sources, without regard to whether such content came from an LLM. Donald Albury 13:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's plausible that LLMs are covered by the bot policy. If they were, grammar checkers, spell checkers, and machine translation would be "bots". Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: ChatGPT falls under Wikipedia:Bot policy, but per the definitions section it does not fall within that policy's definition of a bot. Rather, use of it would fall under the definition of "assisted or semi-automated editing", and the relevant policy section is Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines. The section doesn't aim to draw a 100% hard line, but my reading is that limited of ChatGPT for clean-up on a limited number of articles by a user in a limited closely-supervised way may be something users can do if they are trusted to apply their common sense. It is "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits" who "are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Limited use of ChatGPT to a lesser degree than would trigger this may currently be outside policy. In any event "A bot account should not be used for assisted editing".

It seems to me that an addition to the policy along the lines suggested by User:JPxG to address this potential hole might well be useful, eg "tools capable of assisting editors make substantial edits (for example large language model output) should only be used by competent editors who do not blindly paste tool output into the edit window and press "save"." Jheald (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In what way does the bot policy cover ChatGPT? Just because it is called a "chatbot", doesn't mean it is a bot. Copying text from GPT-3 doesn't automatically become bot-like editing. Semi-automated edits? i'd call that borderline. It only becomes a problem (e.g. meatbot problems) if the amount of supervision needed to save an edit is below normal editing, and that the speed of the edits are above normal. (see awb, huggle, etc) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, any LLM additions will inevitably be both faster than writing manually and, due to its confidently-wrong output, less reviewed. Otherwise, why would anyone bother with it? I feel that assuming that editors will spend just as much time to carefully review the LLM output is wishful thinking. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I have never seen any precedent on Wikipedia that better tools would lead editors to spend the time saved to further verify the tool output. If anything, tools only create induced demand. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything in particular. There is plenty of confidently-wrong content being added to Wikipedia by human editors already and we're dealing with that as well as we can. I think the intersection of 'Editors who will use a cutting-edge AI to generate content' and 'Editors who will do this without validating the output' is a very small overlap and will be of such small volume to be picked up by other editors as usual. A huge influx will be detected in aggregate, and we can deal with that if it becomes a problem in the future. If someone uses LLM to generate confidently-right content or articles, that's indistinguishable from content generated by a competent human, I refer you to xkcd: Constructive! A simple but unobtrusive first step may be to tag an edit as 'generated by AI', or maybe just ask editors to add a tag to their user pages if they regularly do so, but the intersection of problematic users who also follow this would be basically non-existent. JeffUK (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK, Hellknowz, 0xDeadbeef, Jheald, Jahaza, Donald Albury, JPxG, and AndyTheGrump:

So, wait until after it becomes a huge influx/problem, and only start to deal with it then? What if a solution takes weeks or months to develop?

By the way, what might the solution be for a huge influx of LLM-generated content, and how long would such a fix likely take?    — The Transhumanist   11:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about at this point. I wrote WP:LLM some weeks ago, a gigantic proposal for a comprehensive guideline on the use of LLMs, and linked it multiple times on this noticeboard. While it is not complete, it seems to me like it covers everything you are talking about here. Do you have an opinion on it at all, or...? jp×g 15:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG although I haven't read more than the beginning, I'm also worried about AIs creating images.For instance I've seen some extremely convincing ones of fake archaeological sites and artefacts. Couldn't people pass them off as their own photos? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 17:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a whole other deal. This proposal is only for large language models. Large image models will probably need to be governed by something much more imaginative. jp×g 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone's editing is inappropriate, the solution will be notifying them it's inappropriate, warning them, then banning them if they don't stop. There are ways for incompetent editors to make massive plausible seeming changes to the encyclopaedia right now. e.g. by copy/pasting content from other places, or just writing in made up 'facts', LLM really won't make this any easier for someone who's intent on doing this. JeffUK 18:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Overdose of rules must be avoided

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are editors who are not native speakers of English. They can edit Wikipedia, but can't take part in such high voltage debates.

Not possible to remember what pronouns one prefers, while discussing about some other topics.

If a long term British administrator face language issues, I don't know what will happen to others.

Different countries also have different culture. Calling someone monkey in one country is racist, but in another country it's considered comedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive347#TheresNoTime_%3A_accusations_me_of_hate_speech_and_ableism 42.105.5.206 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with policy bloat. I agree that bickering about turns of phrase is unproductive and many users in that discussion needlessly escalated the situation. However, you're linking to a discussion that was closed over a month ago, and it's not clear what exactly you're proposing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If you really can't remember what pronoun someone uses, and you can't be bothered to find out before commenting (which is honestly not that much of an ask, but okay), then just use the {{gender:}} magic word (though it doesn't work for neopronouns). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US judicial information may need to be vetted

As part of the National Defense Appropriation Act that is clearing both the House and Senate is the text of the "Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act", and thus will likely be passed soon. [2] That act would allow any federal judge (Supreme court down to districts) and close family members to request specific personal information to be removed from social media sites (which Wikipedia appears to be covered under) upon receipt of request to remove that information. Most of the information that is covered is stuff we'd not include like home addresses, etc. but it also includes things like birthdays. See the last version of the bill here [3]. I don't know if that means we need the WMF to set up something but we may need to set up information related to this on WP. Masem (t) 03:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Section 4(d):

(ii) EXCEPTIONS.—Clause (i) shall not apply to—

(I) the display on the internet of the covered information of an at-risk individual or immediate family if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern;

(II) covered information that the at-risk individual voluntarily publishes on the internet after the date of enactment of this Act; or

(III) covered information received from a Federal Government source (or from an employee or agent of the Federal Government).

I would contend that Wikipedia coverage of judicial officers constitutes "speech on a matter of public concern"; additionally, most information we have on federal judges originated as "information received from a Federal Government source", specifically scraped from the database of the Federal Judicial Center. BD2412 T 04:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, consider that the FJC is something set in the legislation that would have to scrub their databanks should it be requested. And while I would agree the reading of (I) *should* clear WP of any issues, we don't know how some judges would react. Masem (t) 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Like every other time we play Chicken Little games with legal news we have no training to interpret and act upon, we should wait for the WMF legal team to do something about this. A bunch of untrained randos have no business interpreting legislation and deciding what it means for us. Let the lawyers that WMF hires decide that. --Jayron32 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

All I'm saying is we should be aware of this is in place, and may need to be prepared to act if the WMF agrees we need to. Masem (t) 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I presume they won't keep it a secret. Indeed, if they need to, WP:OFFICE will be invoked, and there's still nothing we can do about it in that case. --Jayron32 14:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Whether the FJC scrubs information in the future or not, we have already received the information. BD2412 T 14:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, IF the information will need to be removed from Wikipedia, it will require that a notice be sent to someone. The WMF will receive that notice, and will need to be the ones to decide how to act upon it. There's nothing we need to do pre-emptively until that happens. --Jayron32 14:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

All that I think is important right now that of some new user or ip comes along and demands removal of a judge's personal info under this law, we should redirect them to the WMF, barring any new directive from WMD, and importantly not immediately treat it as a legal threat. Awareness this could happen is my main concern. Masem (t) 20:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on the legalities or legal requirements, I think as a community it'd be more productive to focus on the principles and equities at issue; in other words, the important parts (to me) are not the requirements of the law but the reasons for the law.

This US law was passed in response to problems with judges being targeted because as public figures, their personal information (like address, full date of birth) are generally freely available online. An exception was created that shielded this information for the judges' safety.

We should consider the safety aspect of it. I've never been convinced that a full date of birth (as opposed to year/age only) is truly necessary encyclopedic information for BLPs. It seems to me that limiting BLP DOBs to year only is a reasonable safety precaution. I feel the same about place of residence (city/town) for a BLP. Why make such details so readily available by including them in Wikipedia BLPs?

I think this law should prompt us to look at our own policies and see if we're properly balancing privacy interests and encyclopedic interests. It's not just judges, but many public figures, whose risk we may be needlessly contributing to.

Aside from that, if this law is signed, I think Masem makes a good point that we should be aware not to process requests for the removal of such information as a legal threat. But it'd be better to enforce such things as a matter of Wikipedia policy rather than US law. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well said. The community should be focusing on determining principle aspects rather than legal ones (which WMF is much better-equipped to deal with). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• I would also argue in most cases, a BLP article only needs the year of birth and a listing of the age. Maybe a month as well. If the exact year of birth is widely available, and multiple other publications make observation of the person's birth date, than including a full birth date for a living person is reasonable. However if this information is based on one source, you really need to ask is the full day and month as well as year the person was born needed. Donald Trump and Joseph Biden their birth date is very public and there is no reason to announce it, for some other people this is less so. Clearly for some people who are marginally notable, or who were in the public spotlight years ago but are not so much now, having the exact month and day of their birth is not needed. I do not think including the city of residence is going to be an issue, and have never seen an inclusion of exact addresses in Wikipedia, so I think only the date of birth is an issue. I really see no reason to be more exact than a month for living people, although as I said if the exact day of birth is widely and regularly publicized, we of course would cover it, but we do not need to to make it available if it is not well known. I am not really sure there is much needed to do about this now, but I think it is a useful guide for article creation or if you are editing BLPS for other reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I picked the 3rd circuit district level judges just to review somewhere to see what we are looking at. Of the currently active district level judges under that circuit we have full birth date (day month and year) for 35 judges, and either only year or month and year for 24. Almost all of the judges born before 1970 we have the full details on, while most of them born after 1970 we have only the year or month and year of birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • For the record, I would object to any removal of sourced information on life dates. BD2412 T 16:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle that a date of birth doesn't necessarily add a lot of value to the readers; but surely in practice if Wikipedia editors have found the persons DOB in reliable secondary sources there's very little harm done by including that information, as anyone who intends to misuse that information could find the secondary sources themselves. i.e. WP:V means we only include information that's in the public domain already, so I don't think the argument that republishing it here causes harm is particularly convincing. JeffUK (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that Martindale-Hubbell when it was published in hard copy usually included full birth dates for attorneys. If I recall correctly, Martindale discontinued their hard copy version around 2010 and also began to scrub full birth dates from Martindale.com as well. It's harder to find that information online for attorneys admitted to the bar after 2010. This may explain the pattern discerned above by John Pack Lambert. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Acupuncture

A case request was opened about 24 hours ago at DRN concerning acupuncture, and I closed it for various reasons, one of which is that there is a consensus in Wikipedia that acupuncture is not medically effective. The filing editor is continuing to ask questions, and so I will ask questions here. Just to be clear, I am a skeptic about forms of so-called alternative medicine, including acupuncture, and I know that Wikipedia is skeptical about so-called alternative medicine, but I would like to be directed to where that consensus has been established.

So, first, will someone please point me to where the consensus has been established that Wikipedia considers acupuncture to be pseudoscience?

Second, if an editor wants to challenge the existing Wikipedia consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience, what is the correct forum for that purpose?

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WP:FTN

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture led to the motion that authorised discretionary sanctions in the topic area. Arbcom rightly didn't find that acupuncture is pseudoscience (that's not Arbcom's job), and it declined to decide whether it's pseudo or fringe, but nobody in that case argued that it wasn't one of the two. I expect the way to challenge that consensus would be via RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine but maybe warn the DS-enforcing sysops and get their views before starting one?—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, this question is actually more complicated than it sounds. Here's an oversimplified answer:

• Acupuncture, including placebo/sham acupuncture, often makes people feel better, especially for conditions that are susceptible to placebo effects (e.g., pain).
• The idea that there is a non-material energy force that goes through certain paths/points in human bodies, and that the act of sticking a needle in those spots changes the flow of that energy is not compatible with scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge deals with the material world; anything that is not part of the material world is non-scientific (e.g., beauty, goodness, spirituality, knowledge per se, etc.).
• Something can "work" (e.g., function to some purpose; be accurate) and be non-scientific (e.g., all great works of art; all good journalism). Something can "not work" and be 100% scientific (e.g., broken engineering designs, experimental drugs that turn out to be ineffective or harmful).
• What makes something pseudoscientific is the story you tell about it. If I tell you that a television works because miniature actors run around inside of it to make the picture, then: the television works and my story is nonsense. If I tell you that a television works because string theory says that dark matter interacts with weak forces to make the picture, then: the television works and my story is pseudoscience. If I tell you that a television works because it receives radio waves that tell it which bits of the screen to turn off and on, then: the television works and my story is scientific.
• Acupuncture could be said to work (for some conditions, under some circumstances), but the story about chi is irredeemably pseudoscientific.

Is it fair to say that acupuncture is pseudoscience? Maybe. It's an incomplete explanation, but IMO it might be fair.

See also Wikipedia:Alternative medicine and Wikipedia:Biomedical information if you want more general information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Separating Fact from Fiction In Movie and TV descriptions

I was extremely disappointed with Wikipedia's posting regarding the feature film Tar. Your listing failed to mention that the Protagonist is not a real person. The response I received from my initial contact with Wikipedia concerning my initial complaint was "Must every article about a movie about a fictional character specifically state that the character is fictitious? Since most movies are not biopics, but made-up stories, doesn't it make more sense to highlight the few rather than the many? Tár is described as "a 2022 psychological drama film." See, for example, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Winston>, described as "a biographical adventure drama war film covering the early years of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill."

My reply was, yes, it should be stated when it is a fictional character. In the case of Tar, Wikipedia merely bolstered the fake ad campaign put out by the studio and/or producers that the film was a biopic about a real person. Wikipedia could have simply added to their page, as they did with 'This is Spinal Tap', "This Is Spinal Tap is a 1984 American mockumentary film...". Fisher92F (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually we presume all characters in a work are fictional, but the way the Tar page is written, particularly the plot, it definitely raises questions about Tar being real or not (the number of real life touch points on the plot). Thus is definitely a case that "fictional" needs to be added to the lede and plot section. Masem (t) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That Lydia Tár isn't linked in the article (along with the film being labeled a psychological drama) should clue the reader in this is a fictional story. I haven't seen the film, but unless its presented as documentary the sort of mockumentary label used on This Is Spinal Tap wouldn't make sense. (That This Is Spinal Tap was a fictional documentary was central to the film's premise.) That said, I added a sentence to the lead about viewer confusion about the fictional nature of the film and it looks like there are a number of other sources discussing this, so it could probably be expanded upon as a section in the body of the article. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged it with the standard {{in-universe}} notice. This happens all the time in fandom-related articles. Boba Fett is more real to some people than Jesus Christ. The "Reception" section doesn't yet seem to address the marketing aspect. I noticed one footnote that they've actually included a "thinly veiled" real person as a character. Elizium23 (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Fisher92F I don't know who you contacted, but the right place to discuss the article content is on the article's talk page here Talk:Tár, where more interested editors will see your query. To the above points, Forrest Gump was written as if it was a real story, interspersed with real events, we don't call Gump 'fictional' explicitly in the lead and I don't think we need to. JeffUK 10:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about some RS on Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Let's say that RS (a book or scholarly work of some historian) is put up for discussion, because supposedly it is not RS for Wikipedia. Are the arguments for proving irregularities of that RS is reviews of some historian, information from some books, etc. Or editor's personal opinion without confirmation in reviews etc. is enough? How is it discussed in that case, that is, what is needed to dispute or confirm some RS? Mikola22 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So we can understand your hypothetical, you are talking about a situation where other editors think the source is reliable, but you disagree and want to challenge this consensus and have it declared unreliable… Is this correct? Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: No, simply refuting the source with personal editorial opinion. Nothing is presented (RS, review etc) only personal opinion is used. Mikola22 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am confused… why are you refuting the source? Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: RS is put up for discussion. Two editors dispute that source with their personal opinion. I ask them for quality sources that challenge that source ie reviews etc but they still continue with a personal opinion about the source. Do I need to explain more? --Mikola22 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah… so it’s the other editors who are challenging the source? And you want to know what sort of evidence they need to present? Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. What is the rule in such a discussion? Mikola22 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If there are RS that comment on the source (or even just the cite it as if it were reliable), arguments based on those comments should be weighted more in determining consensus. That said, there are no better options sometimes than informed editor opinion. There are hundreds of millions of unreliable sources about which no RS has commented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about a book of some historian or a scientific paper published by an Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is wider input from other Wikipedians, you will have to accept whatever consensus has formed. If this is the only source that you can use to support the content in question, then it may be undue, and have to be left out until a reliable source acceptable to the community can be found. As it used to say in the verifiability policy, Verifiability, not truth is required for inclusion. - Donald Albury 20:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I'm talking about discussion, not about the sources. Let's say that the source is RS(book of some historian). What the editors must present when they disputing such a source. Is a personal opinion enough, (that in their opinion the source is not valid, that there are errors, etc., or should the editors present negative reviews or books which talk about these irregularities? Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

While closers are encouraged to put more weight on arguments from policy in determining consensus in AfD discussions, there is no formal process for assessing discussions about the reliability of sources, and no rules about how to weigh opinions. It does state in the header for WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that: While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. However, if you add a citation to a source that other editors remove as "not a reliable source", you should not add it again without a consensus of all editors who have expressed an opinion that it is reliable. That the author is a historian, or the publisher is an Academy, does not guarantee that the source will be accepted as reliable in Wikipedia. There is a presumption that sources authored by a recognized authority and/or published by a major publishing house or university press may be reliable, but again, there is no guarantee that such sources will be reliable for any particular use in Wikipedia. Ultimately, the reliability of source for a particular purpose is determined by the collective opinion (consensus) of Wikipedia editors. Donald Albury 20:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, if one side or the other in a consensus discussion can present “evidence”, it will make their argument stronger and convince more editors to support their view of the source… but it is not required. I have seen cases where someone laid out all sorts of “evidence” to persuade everyone that a source was (or was not) reliable, only to have the broader community decide that this “evidence” was not convincing enough. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I learned on this wikipedia that my opinion about some source (book) means nothing, that sources ie negative reviews must say that som RS is bad not me. And then, on the basis of such negative reviews, a source can be removed from Wikipedia. It's not possible that three of as editors take some historian RS ie book and that three of as expose personal opinion about that book ie that is not suitable for us, that book has errors, etc and declare it in consensus that this RS is not RS. I think that such thing is not possible without quality sources. What I learned here that it is almost impossible to declare some historian as no RS. For that we need dozens of negative reviews and academic critiques. For a scientific paper or book of some historian it is a little easier, but even then you need many sources which have negative criticism. And now you say that only personal opinion is enough. This is the first time I've heard that it's a rule. --Mikola22 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends on why it is being disputed. If a book has been self-published, for example, then per the English Wikipedia's rules it might not be used as a source. We wouldn't need a review to specifically complain about the publishing. But your dispute is on the Croatian Wikipedia. The answers you get here will be about the English Wikipedia. Each version of Wikipedia has its own rules and procedures. What you are being told at the English wiki may not apply at the Croatian wiki. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about a historian's book from a quality publisher and a scientific paper from the Academy of Arts and Sciences. This is the strongest RS that can be on this globe. There is nothing stronger than that. And now I hear that my opinion is enough to challenge those sources. Are you kidding me? Mikola22 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not hearing anything, because you haven't told us what you are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not deal in such abstractions, but in concrete cases. It seems that the concrete case that this is about is not on the English Wikipedia. The question needs to be asked on the Croatian Wikipedia or, in extremis, at meta:. There is nothing we can do about it here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: What does Croatian Wikipedia have to do with this question? I am interested in how a RS is discussed on the English Wikipedia. What I as editor must present to challenge some RS? Do I give a personal opinion or do I have to quote reviews ie RS. Well, I can't put a book of some American academic here and say my personally opinion ie that the book is not good? And that my opinion will be taken into account. I guess I have to prove my opinion with something. We are not both historians and reviewers. Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Then what concrete case on the English Wikipedia is this about? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I said, the discussion itself. Not a specific discussion, but a discussion in general. Which is the rule in such cases? Let's say we have the strongest RS on the globe, the same was put up for discussion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Some editor comes and gives his personal opinion about this RS, that according to him it is not a quality source. Is this the correct way to dispute a source? Or he must expose negative reviews, other RS, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I repeat that it all depends on the specific case. English Wikipedia policies and guidelines are summaries of what we do in such cases, not statute laws that try to predict what someone might do in a hypothetical case. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

To say the same thing in a different way, what use would an answer on specific simpler-than-reality hypothetical case be other than to mis-apply it to a different case? RSN works by multiple people weighing multiple considerations for the specific case. Overall I think that that works pretty well. As a mere observation of that process, I think that credible convincing arguments and observations formulated by the participant (and not necessarily quoting a source commenting on a source) are a common thing that influences the discussion. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury, MrOllie, Firefangledfeathers, and North8000: Guys let's try again. We have RS of some historian. The same source is published by the best publisher. Some editor put this RS on Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion. After that, some editors come and start reviewing the book themselves. That is, there is false information on this page, the author made a mistake od this pages, the context the author gives is wrong, this information is not possible because my personal opinion is that it is impossible, here things happened completely differently and not as described by the author, and therefore it cannot be RS for Wikipedia. I am interested in whether this way of proving the quality of RS is allowed or not. That is, whether such an editor's opinion is taken into account? I am not saying whether this is allowed to the editor because everyone can express their opinion, but whether it is taken as relevant evidence which other editors can also take as evidence (someone's private anonymous review) Try to answer me specifically yes or no. So let's start with this question first.

My experience with this Wikipedia is that in the beginning (until I didn't know the rules yet) I also contested the sources(books) in such a way, but my opinion was not taken into account considering that it is not written anywhere ie in RS and that my personal opinion means nothing without RS. That I cannot challenge RS ie some book of historian only with my opinion. I must have quality reviews that say so. Mikola22 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes as only RS can contest the claims in an RS. The way you prove an RS is not a valid source is to show that it does not represent the expert consensus. RS have a "reputation for fact-checking", you have to be able to show that a source does not have such a reputation. That can only be done by showing that other RS consider its opinions are flawed, that is fact expert opinion is that it does not fact check. If you want a concrete example, look at the career of David Irving, who went from reputable historian to pariah and peddler of false hoods in about two books. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, thanks for an answer, @Selfstudier: if you can say your opinion it would be nice so that we have more opinions. Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I already gave my opinion at the other board. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I know, but this is for the reason that everything remains in one place for some other editors if they see a similar problem. However, you said it there and that's it, thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

To put things in context (concrete cases, no abstractions!), let me start by quoting the passage in Pilić&Matković (p389) from which user Mikola22 added material to hr:Koncentracijski logor Jasenovac (en:Concentration camp Jasenovac) — google translation, my bolding and line breaks:

1. According to the anthropologist's conclusion, "on the basis of the hair color, it can be concluded that this is a population with a light component, most likely of Slavic (Slavic) origin. So there were no Jews or Gypsies there."^{[ref:196x excavation]}
2. It is to be assumed that they were not Serbs either^{[ref:Štefan 1]}
3. so it is more likely to be Croats (Catholics and Muslims) and possibly Germans.
4. Here we must recall the research of Ljubica Štefan, which is part of this research she quoted almost word for word in her works,^{[Štefan 2]} which did not have "scientific quality" due to the lack of notes and the so-called scientific apparatus.
5. Considering the material, objects, textile and its color and footwear, we can conclude that it was about people who went somewhere for a long time, that is, refugees. It can be assumed that the grave in question could be a war grave of Croatian refugees who were returning from Bleiburg and who were diverted from some of the Ways of the Cross. In all probability, they were liquidated in the near future, they were killed mostly with blunt objects and in series.

Because of all these uncertainties and dearth of scientific rigor expressed by the authors themselves, user Mikola22 has been asked to provide WP:VER "multiple high-quality sources, (because) there are surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

He has also been told that there must be a consensus on whether to add material or not. WP:VER: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." Currently, no such consensus exists and his edit vas partially reverted.

WP:RS "One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." User Mikola22 has been asked to analyze all such citations. Slatersteven instructed "Per wp:rs a source has to have had a positive reception by either A a very large number of cites by nonexpert RS, or B a smaller number from expert RS. It needs to be shown RS thinks it knows what it is talking about. That RS considers it a trustworthy source."

There is a clique of Croatian historians and publicists that are, by some reputable sources, considered holocaust deniers and revisionists. Professor Kasapović of Zagreb University lists štefan, Pilić&Matković among them (here).

So it is not *only* the Croatian wikipedia editors' opinion that mattered, but the overal sentiment on the authors and their work. In that respect, believing that a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, the user has been challenged to show a widespread scientific consensus in reliable, highly cited sources.

But OK, what would you do? Maybe user Mikola22 can try to add the same material in the enwiki article and see how that discussion goes.

Note that m:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 put special emphasis on this very article. It had been rewritten since, and its edit history is more-or-less stable.

It was not my choice to bring this discussion here, but I felt obliged to provide the full context. Apologies if it's out of this page's scope. Ponor (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not the place of the English language WIki to decide policies or procedures on other wiki's. We are not some higher court of appeal. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. That's why I was surprised that the RS/N discussion continued here and gained even more traction. Ponor (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

My request here is how does discussion work on english Wikipedia. I am part and this Wikipedia. Therefore discussing some source from other Wikipedias has nothing to do with my question here. Editor @Ponor: there must be some order. You can't discuss sources everywhere while I raise topics about procedure and method of discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The process in English Wikipedia is that, if you want to include certain content in an article, and it is challenged, then there must be a consensus by involved editors that the material is verifiable from reliable sources, has a neutral point of view, and is appropriate for inclusion in the article. The question of whether a particular source is reliable for verifying particular content is based on an assessment of the reputation of the author and publisher for reliability. That decision is not based on any editor's personal analysis or opinion of the contents of the source. If you want to establish that a source that otherwise meets the English Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (published, but not self-published, not deprecated, having a reputation for fact checking and/or editorial review, etc.) is not reliable for verification of specific content, then you must present other reliable sources that make that clear. Your personal experience and opinion do not count. Donald Albury 18:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Yes, that's what I learned on the English Wikipedia. We can't make personal claims such as "I know it's a good or bad source". And what about disputing or confirming the source ie RS, how to dispute some source (reputation of the author and publisher for reliability)? What do we need as the main argument in that case, procedure? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you can make a personal claim such as “I know it’s a good/bad source” (you are allowed to share your personal opinion) … it’s just that 99% of the time, no one will listen or give your opinion any weight if you can’t elaborate further and explain why you say that. And, obviously, the best elaboration/explanation is to point to other reliable sources that explicitly criticize the source in question.

Something else to consider… there are situations where two sources disagree with each other, and this does not necessarily mean that one is reliable and the other is unreliable. Both can be considered reliable despite the disagreement. When this happens, our policy is to stay neutral and present the disagreement (saying “Source A says X, but Source B says Y”.) Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Yes, when I as a editor say “I know it’s a good/bad source” I always have some basis for my statement, source, review, opinion of another historian etc. When I present a source for discussion, I present negative reviews and then the editors in consensus decide whether that is enough to declare some source as not relevant. Mikola22 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You are trying to elicit categorical statements where they do not exist. I once encountered a case where a source that had the trappings to be a wp:RS and which was an actually reliable source, through a mere poor choice of words made an absurd statement, so absurd that no other source even addressed the issue. To make up an analogue, a statement that "elephants rained from the sky in Phoenix on January 1st, 2021." There is not going to be a source that says "elephants did not rain from the sky in Phoenix on January 1st, 2021", the statement is officially sourced and there is no policy basis to remove it on verifiability grounds, nor to put in a sourced view that disputes that statement. At RSN where common sense is unofficially utilized, they are somehow going to decide that the source is not sufficient to support the statement even though there is not a policy basis for that. Intuitively they will be applying the missing policy "the more extraordinary/ incredulous the claim, the stronger the sourcing that is required" and decide that a RS statement that went wrong due to a poor choice of words is not sufficient to source that particular statement. So the fuzzy system worked, even if there is no clear policy-based rule that led to it that you could extract as a categorical statement that could be transported to a different situation. North8000 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I have many examples from articles where some information is false, unproven in other sources, or based on falsified information. But this informations cannot be removed from the articles because they are from RS. My personal opinion that some informations are "false, unproven in other sources, or based on falsified information", mean anything, nor did it mean anything in the discussions. I must have sources which talk about it(specifically). I am not a historian or reviewer that my opinion should be taken as irrefutable proof. As for imformation that "elephants rained from the sky in Phoenix on January 1st, 2021." from RS, obviously for such information you do not need to have RS to remove it. But for some false etc information that is significant and historical and even confirmed from two RS, is very difficult to throw out from article with a personal statement: “I know it’s a good/bad source” ie informaton. It is a very complex question. Mikola22 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, let's not spread the discussion about sources or information from sources, I'm specifically interested in the discussion process and personal opinion(without confirmation in anything) as an argument that some RS is not good or author ie historian. So we are talking about the strongest rank of sources and publishers of these sources. --Mikola22 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Details matter. The details of your unrealistic hypothetical case (in your last two posts) more or less dictate the answer for that unrealistic hypothetical case. Two very strong sources (established as such) say what has been established to be the same thing. And the only argument against them is one editor who makes no argument other than saying that their personal opinion is that they are unreliable. In that particular unrealistic hypothetical example, obviously that editor's argument to not use them will not / should not prevail. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: In the case of two sources, I do not speak that someone disputes them with his personal opinion, I am saying that on Wikipedia RS must be respected even though some primary information which these sources use does not exist. But that non-existent primary information is a part two RS, and not only two but possibly in five sources. I am saying this for the reason that you cannot actually remove information from RS ie from Wikipedia with a private opinion. That's my experience, because in that case(two sources) I didn't have a private opinion. I had two sources, one from the highest authority ie Historian and Academician who say that the primary source (used by these two sources and another 4-5 of them) is actually a non-existent document. So I don't see any way that some information or RS could be disputed with just personal opinion as I could not remove some information based on two RS even though I had academic sources as evidence. Recently I also have an example of someone disputing RS with the claim that he dealt with this problem private (study, at work), and he privately knows scientific procedure, and this is the reason that he considers some RS as not relevant. Therefore, private opinion in disputing the RS actually means nothing. Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Mikola22, if something is reliably sourced then it doesn't necessarily belong on the English Wikipedia. It is still subject to consensus. I will not post here any more unless you tell us what article this is about because I agree with Donald Albury below. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: If you are interested in something, you have my page on Cro Wiki and feel free to ask. Mikola22 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion be collapsed. It is not going anywhere, and is eating up a lot of editor time. - Donald Albury 14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, looks like we're done, anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting part of a rule

Hello Wikipedia administrators.

I went to fix the Bangor, Maine page to put the "st", "rd", and "th" in superscripts when they are used in ordinals. I am confused why Wikipedia has a rule called MOS:ORDINAL that says that we should not do this. The rule says "Do not superscript", but it's gramatically correct to use the superscript in the English language, so the part of the rule that says not to use superscript should be deleted. Why have Wikipedia administrators made this rule?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response. Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Lobster from Maine, the community makes the rules, not the administrators. You can start a discussion on the MOS:ORDINAL talk page, but I doubt the MOS will change if the only basis is "grammatically correct" as this is a global encyclopedia and does not follow a specific set of grammar rules. Which is why we have an extensive manual of style. Slywriter (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lobster from Maine, you can find the discussion where this was decided here[4] in the archive of the talk page for the manual of style. The reasons given then were that the superscript was unconventional and rejected by AP style as well as the style manuals of a number of university presses. Jahaza (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that if you wanted to change the rule, you'd want to start the discussion on the current talk page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, not on the archived one. Jahaza (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for telling me why this was made and where to go to get it changed. Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter of grammar, but of orthography. I know of no variety of English where the writing of ordinals without superscripts is incorrect. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable source?

I own a few of my grandfather’s sports medals and would like to mention given achievements in his Wikipedia article, but i wonder if it works as a source? I understand it possibly being problematic policy wise, but they’re not written about anywere (as sometimes is the case with these), so the idea of nobody ever knowing about it is tragic. Wonder if there are any exceptions that can be made. Xәkim (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The medals themselves aren't really a usable source because nobody else can verify them. If your grandfather's achievements were reported somewhere (e.g. in local newspapers) that would be useable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Remember that you can still create a web page descibing your grandfather's achievements, even if the medals cannot be used as a reliable source for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia may be very popular, but its policies do not apply to the whole Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there is a template for citing a highway sign, so there are pretty wide boundaries on what is considered verifiable, although the common thread is that it's publicly verifiable. jp×g 16:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

{{cite sign}} is only intended for existing (as of the time of citation) public displays. Historical signage could be cited through a secondary source, including via archives. 63.118.97.194 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your grandfathers article is interesting. Could you not photograph the medals and show them in the article and thus list the achievements? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, CambridgeBayWeather can i do that? Xәkim (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Or, maybe i can upload them to Flickr and give that as a a source? Xәkim (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't give you a definitive answer because I don't know how the laws would cover reproductions of that sort in your country. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Including photos of existing medals would be an example of WP:SKYISBLUE. If you want guidance on best practices for including medals in an article, WP:MILHIST WikiProject may have a lot of practical experience to share, given that it's a medal galore there. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN may be a more appropriate venue for this question. In any case, I can't imagine that most Wikipedia editors would accept the word of another Wikipedia editor, particularly one who is also claiming a clear conflict of interest, as a reliable source. It's not personal, we just need a source that has been published, preferable one that is secondary and independent. ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMDB-EL and copyright violations

Hi all,

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this, but whatevs.

I have recently added the IMDb profile of Barton Heyman to that article following the WP:IMDB-EL "explanatory essay".

The problem is, that IMDb page appears to include text that would appear to be a copyright violation of the 1996 NYT article I cited as reference in the article.

It would appear to me that WP:IMDB-EL does not take this sort of thing into account. Your thoughts about this?

Peter in Australia aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that the content on the IMDB page may violate a copyright, then WP:COPYVIOEL applies; i.e., we cannot have a link in the article to that page. - Donald Albury 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

i thing User:Nfhgfjtutumtmrm is not a sockpuppet of user:kfjisee.(reason:user:kfjisee is edit to build an encyclopedia)​

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:kfjisee is edit to build an encyclopedia but he edit war,abusing 3revert law

example editing

1. However, the reduction of delayed onset muscle soreness may require compression in combination therapy.]
2. However, some people who are thrifty and don't buy products. change in new technology It may not affect your liking.]
3. remove "to benefit people, enterprises and the planet. text...because it is like an advertisement and reference Not certifying that it's really good.
4. The page you're looking for doesn't exist.--->http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/AIC'S/17.1.pdf CAA Website,no that link is show text with "CAA Website" and link to "http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/AIC'S/17.1.pdf"]
5. not warmimg

101.109.178.43 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What? I think you are in the wrong place -- this sounds like an WP:ANI issue, although I doubt that anyone there will know what to do about warmimgs such as this. jp×g 11:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

this is​ ​not​ sockpuppet​ issue, please read topic again— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44C8:470E:93F5:EA48:C3BE:D2E:C342 (talk) 00:09 6 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the correct venue for reporting problem editing. However, I think you need to more clearly explain what the problem is in order for anyone at ANI to comment on it. - Donald Albury 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Note, this page is only for discussing already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" from the Admin Policy

Should the Administrator and Blocking policies be harmonized by removing the bulletpoint that begins "Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" " from the Administrator policy? 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Special situations text

In some situations, the usual policy for reversing another administrator's action does not apply: * Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee": Rarely, in blocking an editor, an administrator will have to note that their block "should be lifted only by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom only". Such a provision must only be made if the nature of the block demands that its circumstances not be further discussed on-wiki (and instead be considered further only in a confidential environment). This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify an anonymous editor, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block was unjustified. In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee by email of the block and the reasons for it. In August 2012, the Arbitration Committee issued a reminder that administrators must promptly notify the committee when making sensitive blocks or when noting that a block can be "appealed only to ArbCom". In these situations, the administrator retains responsibility for their block (see this arbitration ruling) but will be accountable to the committee. (Such blocks have been the subject of long-standing Wikipedia practice, and were also discussed in the fourth paragraph of this statement.) Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee: Separate from the first situation, a member of the Arbitration Committee may block an account. Blocks made by an arbitrator with the summary "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{ArbComBlock}}" are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. These blocks are made by a decision of arbitrators, very rarely, and only with good reason. Therefore, administrators must not reverse ArbCom blocks without the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.) Checkuser blocks: Blocks designated as "Checkuser blocks" (that is blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the checkuser permission. Appeal of these blocks may be made to the Unblock Ticket Requests System (which has a designated "checkuser" area) or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators were reminded in July 2010 that they may not reverse checkuser blocks without prior consent from the committee or a checkuser. Oversight blocks: Blocks designated as "Oversight blocks" (that is blocks relying on information that has been suppressed) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the oversight permission. The Arbitration Committee ruled in March 2013 that oversight blocks cannot be reversed without prior consent from the committee or an oversighter.

Background

There is longstanding wording in the Administrator's policy that allows Admins to make blocks "appealable only to the Arbitration Committee". There is no such authorization in the Blocking policy. The language in the Admin policy originated in a 2012 Arbitration Committee statement and references the need at the time to block editors for child protection and other oversightable activities. This statement came before the existence of Oversight Blocks and before the Wikimedia Foundation assumed responsibility for child protection enforcement. A 2022 review by ArbCom of the use of blocks labeled "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" over the preceding 6 years revealed 11 blocks labeled like that not levied by the Arbitration Committee or by a Checkuser. Of those 11, 5 blocks were reported and 6 were not reported to the Arbitration Committee. Nearly all the blocks were for paid editing reasons. Following this audit the Arbitration Committee updated its guidance and the community subsequently affirmed that admins should not be blocking based on off-wiki evidence in an RfC.

Survey (ArbCom appeal blocks)

• Yes I have long thought it ridiculous that an individual admin could label something as an Arbcom only block. I'm a sitting arb and I don't have that power by myself - it takes a majority vote of the committee to do. The community has recently endorsed the idea that it doesn't want non-CUOS admins blocking for private evidence and this feels like a related idea, especially because the concept has existed only in the admin policy. This removes wording that was rarely used, that when it was used was not appropriately followed half the time, and that seems out of step with our policies and practices in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, I do not see any obvious downsides.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support the only time I ever have done it was in a quasi-OS capacity when something had to be oversighted at the database level in UTRS, so it couldn't be sent to the OS team as a whole for review, and by that time I was already an OS'r. Fringe cases like that don't make policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with also fixing associated bullet 2 as below. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, basically per barkeep. It really doesn't make any sense that I, as a non-arb, can either impose on a user a sanction which only arbcom can lift, nor impose on arbcom a responsibility to hear an appeal which they wouldn't have required themselves. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with the amended text Isaacl provided. I also support just the suggestion of merging this with the current text at WP:Blocking policy since there is no point describing the same thing two different ways and there are discrepancies between the two as I note below. Terasail^[✉️] 00:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as that individual admin should be able to change their mind. Also community discussion should be able to make decisions on actions by one individual admin. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support removing an artifact from the mid-2000s before the WMF could handle difficult cases with legal implications. It made sense then but it doesn't now. --Rschen7754 01:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• (summoned by the bot) Support, seems sensible. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support both this proposal and xaosflux's additional change below. I am supporting the ideas, not the phrasing (read: I would oppose forming consensus for this specific wording). If it has not been done already, I would ask that whoever closes this discussion reblocks the 11 accounts previously blocked under this bullet point without the "ArbCom block" label so as to avoid any confusion later down the road. HouseBlaster^talk 02:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support both the main proposal and xaosflux's as sensible updates for the reasons explained by the editors above. Levivich (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support both the main proposal and the change made by xaosflux (or as refined by isaacl). --Enos733 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (ArbCom appeal blocks)

• While brainstorming this idea Xaosflux suggested a larger change: use the same language in the Blocking and Admin policies. While that does seem useful, it's a much larger change than what I was aiming for. So I thought it worth bringing up in this discussion, should there be interest, without it complicating the more focused change I'm invested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• If this is open, lets fix bullet 2 as well:

  FROM:

  Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee: Separate from the first situation, a member of the Arbitration Committee may block an account. Blocks made by an arbitrator with the summary "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{ArbComBlock}}" are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. These blocks are made by a decision of arbitrators, very rarely, and only with good reason. Therefore, administrators must not reverse ArbCom blocks without the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.)

  TO:

  Blocks made per the Arbitration Committee: The Arbitration Committee may require an account to be blocked as a remedy or motion. Such blocks must be labeled as "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{ArbComBlock}}". These blocks are made by a decision of arbitrators, very rarely, and only with good reason. Only blocks approved by such as decision may be labeled as such. Therefore, administrators must not reverse ArbCom blocks without the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.)

  Reasoning is that: 1, there no longer would be a "first situation". 2) There is no requirement to be an administrator to be on arbcom; arbcom must order these - but they are enacted by an admin - even if that admin just happens to be on the committee. (there is no "super class" of editors called arbadmins....) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: any concerns? Wordsmithing, etc encouraged. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  The entire paragraph is a bit longwinded. It could be half the size and still achive the same thing. For example: very rarely, and only with good reason why is policy making note of frequency and arbitrator motivations in a "don't unblock section"? All that needs to be said is "don't revert" and properly define an "arb block" but maybe not with those exact words... Terasail^[✉️] 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Terasail that the section can be trimmed down to just its essentials, such as something like the following:

  • Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee: Blocks authorized by the Arbitration Committee must have a summary containing "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{ArbComBlock}}". Administrators must not reverse such blocks without the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.)

  The context of these blocks can be described within the arbitration policy and procedures. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: This might just be me but what is with this policy explicitly stating that blocks from arb motions shouldn't be unblocked but WP:NEVERUNBLOCK only states that remedies should never be unblocked? Terasail^[✉️] 00:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Terasail that's part of the larger issue - the admin and blocking policies are not really the same here - and really they shouldn't be redundant. I think ideally the admin policy should just refer that special situation blocks exist and have special rules, and everything about "blocking" belongs in the blocking policy. I think barkeep49 is trying to make an incremental positive improvement that will be easier to pass than to have a larger more encompassing discussion right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have no concerns with more copy editing of the other bulletpoints and am supportive of even more alignment of the language between ADMIN and BLOCK - ideally through transclusion so that they could never become out of sync again. But unlike the other issues we're talking about - which is about what not to do - the bulletpoint in ADMINS gave affirmative permission to do something. If some admin were to reverse an unblock of Arbcoms and go "But it wasn't in ADMIN" they wouldn't get very far. But I think it has been entirely possible for good faith admin to rely on the language in ADMIN to do something that isn't ultimately endorsed by the community any more. Fixing that is my priority. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Slight tweak to Isaacl improvement, keeps it succinct, preserves one of the ideas above that such blocks can't be made discretionarily:
  • Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee: Blocks authorized by the Arbitration Committee must have a summary containing "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{ArbComBlock}}". Administrators must only place, change, or remove such blocks with the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.)
• — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bare references

The following is one of the rules for the article creation process: "Articles should reflect only what reliable sources have said about the topic, and all articles need references to reliable sources." However, some of the draft articles are accepted although they have bare references. So, how do the reviewers implement this rule without knowing the reliability of the references when these are given in a bare form? I suggest that those articles created through this process should have full references. It would make it possible to implement this rule and also, to reduce the number of the articles with bare references. Filling bare references is a very hard and time-consuming activity for the editors. Best, Egeymi (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A bare reference to a reliable source is still a reference to a reliable source and therefore does the job. Any reviewer who can't tell if a bare reference is to a reliable source or not frankly shouldn't be reviewing articles at all, so I don't see any problems here. Iffy★Chat -- 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

One could place a tag like {{Cleanup bare URLs}}, but it's a yellow tag, which isn't deemed critical, though should eventually be addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bare refs are references. The citation style is more to do with WP:LINKROT than not being suitable references. WP:REFILL is a thing as well that'll sort out a lot of these. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)