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.simeonovski(a)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(a)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…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org