Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources, and Bard does sometimes put a suitable source in a footnote, even if it (somewhat disappointingly) just links to wikipedia. There's likely to be a variation soon that does a decent job of providing references, and at that point the role of these tools moves beyond being an amusement to a far more credible research tool. So, these long discussions about impact on open knowledge are quite likely to have to run again in 2024... On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:24, Kiril Simeonovski <kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you everyone for your input. > > Your considerations are very similar to mine, and they give a clear direction towards what the guidelines regarding the use of ChatGPT should point to. > > Best regards, > Kiril > > On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 10:11, Ilario valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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(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 >> >> -- >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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

One way I think we can approach this is to think of it as being the latest in this progression: spellchecker -> grammar checker -> text generation support We wouldn't have any sort of footnote or indication of any kind that a spellchecker or grammar checker was used by an editor, it's just built-in to many writing tools. Similarly, if writing a short prompt to generate a longer text is used, then we have no reason to cite that. What we do have, though, is a responsibility to check the output.  Spellcheckers can be wrong (suggesting the correct spelling of the wrong word for example).  Grammar checkers can be wrong (trying to correct the grammar of a direct quote for example).  Generative AI models can be wrong - often simply making things up out of thin air that sound plausible. If someone uses a generative AI to help them write some text, that's not a big deal.  If they upload text without checking the facts and citing a real source, that's very bad. On 2023-05-17 11:51, The Cunctator wrote:

Though, this does run the risk of encouraging people to take the "backwards" approach to writing an article--writing some stuff, and then (hopefully at least) trying to come up with sources for it. The much superior approach is to locate the available sources first, and then to develop the article based upon what those sources say. Todd On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:06 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Agreed. The editor is responsible for their edits, if they fail to provide suitable sourcing, misrepresent the cited source, plagiarise or infringe on copyright that is on them. Do it too often and they get banned. We don’t need to know how they composed the content, so we shouldn’t care. Competence is required. Using a different tool just needs a slightly different competence. Like a chainsaw instead of an axe Cheers, Peter. From: Denny Vrandečić [mailto:vrandecic@gmail.com] Sent: 18 May 2023 01:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source I think Jimmy's proposal is spot on. A generative AI is a tool, and whoever makes the edit is fully responsible for the edit, no matter whether the text was written by the person or with the help of a generative tool. This has the potential to open us for people who are not good at formulating, or who are not confident about their writing. As long as they completely take responsibility for the written text, all is fine. This is similar to the approach the ACM has taken for AI generated text. They decided that a generative model cannot be a co-author as it lacks the ability to be morally responsible for the text. Second, anything that you publish under your name is your responsibility. On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:11 AM Todd Allen &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Though, this does run the risk of encouraging people to take the "backwards" approach to writing an article--writing some stuff, and then (hopefully at least) trying to come up with sources for it. The much superior approach is to locate the available sources first, and then to develop the article based upon what those sources say. Todd On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:06 PM Samuel Klein &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: First: Wikipedia style for dense inline citations is one of the most granular and articulate around, so we're pushing the boundaries in some cases of research norms for clarity in sourcing. That's great; also means sometimes we are considering nuances that may be new. Second: We're approaching a topic close to my heart, which is distinguishing reference-sources from process-sources. Right now we often capture process sources (for an edit) in the edit summary, and this is not visible anywhere on the resulting article. Translations via a translate tool; updates by a script that does a particular class of work (like spelling or grammer checking); applying a detailed diff that was workshopped on some other page. An even better interface might allow for that detail to be visible to readers of the article [w/o traversing the edit history], and linked to the sections/paragraphs/sentences affected. I think any generative tools used to rewrite a section or article, or to produce a sibling version for a different reading-level, or to generate a timeline or other visualization that is then embedded in the article, should all be cited somehow. To Jimbo's point, that doesn't belong in a References section as we currently have them. But I'd like to see us develop a way to capture these process notes in a more legible way, so readers can discover them without browsing the revision history. People using generative tools to draft new material should find reliable sources for every claim in that material, much more densely than you would when summarizing a series of sources yourself. However, as we approach models that can discover sources and check facts, a combination of those with current generative tools could produce things closer to what we'd consider acceptable drafts, and at scale could generate reference works in languages that lack them. I suggest a separate project for those as the best way to explore the implications of being able to do this at scale, and should capture the full model/tuning/prompt details of how each edit was generated. Such an automatically-updated resource would not be a good reliable source, just as we avoid citing any tertiary sources, but could be a research tool for WP editors and modelers alike. SJ On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)wikitribune.com&gt; wrote: One way I think we can approach this is to think of it as being the latest in this progression: spellchecker -> grammar checker -> text generation support We wouldn't have any sort of footnote or indication of any kind that a spellchecker or grammar checker was used by an editor, it's just built-in to many writing tools. Similarly, if writing a short prompt to generate a longer text is used, then we have no reason to cite that. What we do have, though, is a responsibility to check the output. Spellcheckers can be wrong (suggesting the correct spelling of the wrong word for example). Grammar checkers can be wrong (trying to correct the grammar of a direct quote for example). Generative AI models can be wrong - often simply making things up out of thin air that sound plausible. If someone uses a generative AI to help them write some text, that's not a big deal. If they upload text without checking the facts and citing a real source, that's very bad. On 2023-05-17 11:51, The Cunctator wrote: Again at no point should even an improved version be considered a source; at best it would be a research or editing tool. On Wed, May 17, 2023, 4:40 AM Lane Chance &lt;zinkloss(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources, and Bard does sometimes put a suitable source in a footnote, even if it (somewhat disappointingly) just links to wikipedia. There's likely to be a variation soon that does a decent job of providing references, and at that point the role of these tools moves beyond being an amusement to a far more credible research tool. So, these long discussions about impact on open knowledge are quite likely to have to run again in 2024... On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:24, Kiril Simeonovski &lt;kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

FYI, yesterday I stumbled upon Perplexity <https://www.perplexity.ai/>, an AI that cites its sources for its answers. After a couple tests, I'm not convinced on how tight the connection is between the generated text and the sources, but they seem at least to broadly support the claims. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:30 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote:

Note that quite often it just *makes up* a plausible-looking source. Because AI text generators just make up plausible text, not accurate text. On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:40, Lane Chance &lt;zinkloss(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and > competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources, and Bard > does sometimes put a suitable source in a footnote, even if it > (somewhat disappointingly) just links to wikipedia. There's likely to > be a variation soon that does a decent job of providing references, > and at that point the role of these tools moves beyond being an > amusement to a far more credible research tool. > > So, these long discussions about impact on open knowledge are quite > likely to have to run again in 2024... > > On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:24, Kiril Simeonovski > &lt;kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Thank you everyone for your input. > > > > Your considerations are very similar to mine, and they give a clear direction towards what the guidelines regarding the use of ChatGPT should point to. > > > > Best regards, > > Kiril > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 10:11, Ilario valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> > >> 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(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 > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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