Not for every vote. I wanted to get a generic co sensual on the criteria (which I think we have) - now we need to figure out if arbitrary decision on that by me and Briana (and maybe someone else who would like to be part of it). would be fine :).
We've done it so far :). And we can like continue doing so if that's OK. J. sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:22 użytkownik Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org> napisał: > Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow - > Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be > lazy-consensus) > That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an > objection if anything in the text needs our attention. > > > Shahar > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > Hello here, > > > > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication > > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions > > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we > > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria. > > > > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those > articles > > were in the form of: > > > > * Problem description > > * What is important > > * What are the solutions > > * Summary/ Conclusions > > > > Or another recurring pattern: > > > > * What is Apache Airflow > > * Key Features > > * Getting started > > * Installation > > * initialization > > * Core concepts > > * Diving deeper > > * Best Practices > > * Conclusions > > > > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with > > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the > > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for > > AI-generated content. > > > > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were > > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow > > knowledge rather than decrease it. > > > > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is > > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance > > criteria for those publications. > > > > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles - > > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the > article > > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for > > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to > the > > publications. > > > > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy > Is > > bad. > > > > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article > > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help > to > > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful > > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than > > "increase the entropy". > > > > While this is difficult to judge, and it's more of an arbitrary > decision, > > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if > we > > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article > > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana > > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there. > > > > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a > > community decision. > > > > J. > > >
