Define "reliable source".

A source is reliable if can be consulted by other people than the editor
to check the content.

Is this possible with ChatGPT? No, becaue if you address the same
question to CHatGPT, you will have a different answer.

In this case how the people verificaying the information can check that
the editor did not invent the result?

Kind regards

On 17/05/2023 09:08, Kiril Simeonovski 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-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch