I feel that any article with a similar name to another should have a hatnote because my search engine of choice, DuckDuckGo, makes me do a majority of the work of finding Wiki articles, and a hatnote would speed the process up significantly.
My former user account is User:Schoolbus777. Eventually, I will want to delete it as I made it in middle school; however, I would have no clue as to the password. This account has been renamed from "NANPLover47" because I did not put a great deal of thought into that username.
"I guess my thing about RGW is like: If the wrong being righted is that Wikipedia is out of line with scholarly consensus, that's a great motivation for an editor to have. If the wrong is that scholarly consensus should change, that's a very bad motivation." - User:Tamzin
[I]f you have to choose a "pedia" to trust, you might choose the one assembled by a bunch of pedantic nerds saying "well, ACTUALLY" to each other until the heat death of the universe, over the one assembled by an LLM controlled by an insecure Nazi salute-throwing billionaire who sprints to reprogram that LLM every time it shares a fact that makes that billionaire angry or sad, or doesn't fit into his Playskool Machiavellian ambitions and plans. In this particular case, a thousand pedantic nerds is much better than a single rich one. (John Scalzi's "Whatever" blog, "A Review of Grokipedia, Using Myself as Test Subject")
The more LLM-related RFCs I see, the clearer it becomes to me that a major faction in the en.wiki community loathes and detests LLM-generated writing and thinks it's rude and wasteful to ask human editors to spend their limited volunteer time reading and checking it. And I'm coming to think that, of the editors who respond to AI-related RfCs, those who're in this faction increasingly outnumber those who aren't. A lot of this is about reversibility. Wikipedia only works because it's easy to undo things. For example, it's easier to remove vandalism than to generate it. LLMs change this equation, making it easy for people who don't share our thoughts and values to generate prodigious quantities of superficially plausible text with very little effort. Making rules against LLM use is a bit like King Canute ordering the tide not to come in. If this is how we want LLM use to go on en.wiki, then I expect we will come to need bots that revert edits with AI stigmata as promptly and aggressively as Cluebot reverts vandalism. User:S Marshall closing AI GA discussion
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Committed identity: 141522e12a318788ad1f83cbf326343341f8119319e90675578a273f7fb5c54ac8c3f8be0e64873370db63e62c4983af6683aa7380f8fce97c02510ee1a4f6da is an SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
