Hi Kiril, Thanks for raising an interesting topic.
On the first question – ChatGPT obviously shouldn't be used as a reliable source; for various reasons, but primarily because it's a text generator that tends to confidently present completely factually incorrect information. Even the notion of "consulting ChatGPT" when writing an article shouldn't be used. (Though I believe that it can be beneficial for supplementary tasks when used with caution, such as helping proofread text & spot spelling mistakes). On the second question – there's a lot of active discussion on this topic on English Wikipedia. I mostly haven't followed it, but can point you to this draft policy (and, of course, its talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Large_language_models Best Regards Anton Protsiuk On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:22 AM David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've mentioned AI text generators on English Wikipedia's Reliable > Sources Noticeboard a couple of times, and the consensus each time has > been that it's obvious that this rubbish absolutely doesn't belong in > en:wp in any manner. The discussions are how to deal with publishers > who indulge in this nonsense. So yes, I would suggest a text generator > could never be used as a source in this manner. The most unreliable of > sources. > > > > - d. > > On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 08:08, Kiril Simeonovski > <kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Wikimedians, > > > > Two days ago, a participant in one of our edit-a-thons consulted ChatGPT > when writing an article on the Macedonian Wikipedia that did not exist on > any other language edition. ChatGPT provided some output, but the problem > was how to cite it. > > > > The community on the Macedonian Wikipedia has not yet had a discussion > on this matter and we do not have any guidelines. So, my main questions are > the following: > > > > * Can ChatGPT be used as a reliable source and, if yes, how would the > citation look like? > > > > * Are there any ongoing community discussions on introducing guidelines? > > > > My personal opinion is that ChatGPT should be avoided as a reliable > source, and only the original source where the algorithm gets the > information from should be used. > > > > Best regards, > > Kiril > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WMGIBNPN5JNJGUOCLWFCCPD7EL5YN6KU/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ETULXH7VPWVOTOE73RPPAP7MBSTMNJ3I/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PNDMO2QELPSHXAXGKHIWZ7LUNHMVPZAJ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
