Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance

Page last updated: Wednesday 19 at {{evalx|(apply + (split (get-arg 2) ":"))|{{CU

ChatGPT

I was wondering if chat gpt could help with me writing a story? Or is AI banned? Thank you BigKrow (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no local policy about AI. You can see policies and proposals from our sister projects at b:en:WB:AI, m:Using neural network language models, and w:en:WP:AI/w:en:Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. As far as legal and licensing issues are concerned, in the United States, creative works generated by an AI or LLM cannot be protected, but derivative works with sufficient newly creative effort can be if they are based on them (just like any work based on a public domain piece of media). Note that I am not an expert and not giving out any proper financial, legal, or medical advice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I can't use it? Even if I put the text into my own words? Just looking for clarification that's all, thank you. @Koavf: BigKrow (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will I or will I not get blocked for using ChatGPT? Thank you. I really don't want to be banned... thnx. @Koavf: BTW sorry for the persistent pinging, apologies. BigKrow (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ping me. I'm not an admin here, but I find it very unlikely that an admin would block you out of nowhere for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. If you are using an AI tool to take other sources and write a story without attribution, that is definitely a problem, but writing a story on your own and using some of these tools to enhance or improve your own writing seems fine to me. Again, I'm not one to enforce the local policies and one doesn't exist anyone, so it's the Wild West. But I'd be very surprised if you were blocked for that, particularly since this project is in desperate need of more writers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but if the text is copied verbatim from ChatGPT or another LLM, it may be helpful to clearly indicate that text was generated by AI. Anonymous5324859 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a proposed guideline here: WN:AI. Also know that OpenAI gives users ownership of ChatGPT output[1]:

Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output.

Everyone is encouraged to weigh in on our proposed guideline. Without community input and discussion, we can't gain consensus on it and declare it a guideline or policy and in such a case, it could be determined that using AI is forbidden here. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added WN:AI to the relevant Wikidata item, d:Q116214731. Thanks for correcting me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BigKrow

Related discussion.

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make lead

Hi, I've just published NASA revises asteroid 2024 YR4 threat, near-zero chance of Earth impact. Tried to make lead. The article International Asteroid Warning Network issues alert on asteroid 2024 YR4 impact risk in 2032, while reasonably recent, isn't picked up by Make Lead. This is too much work for me, someone else please fix it, I would greatly appreciate it. (CC @Bawolff @Leaderboard). Gryllida (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that tool, sorry. Leaderboard (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please sight (within 23 hours?)

Hi,

Please sight these edits?

Detail: section at talk page.

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about involvement

(I disagreed with a reviewer about this at a talk page of an article.)

"As an author of an article you may (and perhaps should in the interests of time, as you may and as you know the topic well) approve post publish edits if they weren't written by you."

Could you please confirm, or deny, the truthfulness of this statement? Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i do support your statement it seems like everyone is allowed to oppose or rewrite whatever they want to under the published article even though it is not written by him or her. Falconermadrigala (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in discussing the question above, relevant context can be found here: Talk:NASA_revises_asteroid_2024_YR4_threat,_near-zero_chance_of_Earth_impact#Changes_made

The question at hand should be revised to; Should reviewers approve/disapprove edits to articles they have written?

Only reviewers have the ability to sight changes. Non-reviewers cannot sight changes to a stable or published article, meaning they do not have the option to approve or disapprove edits to their own articles.

Current policies and guidelines indicate that a reviewer who writes an article is considered involved and, as a result, is not eligible to perform reviewer tasks on that article. Relevant references include:

A key point from the Pillars of Writing states:

Reviewers cannot make large changes to an article without disqualifying themselves from independent review.

Based on this, a reviewer who authors an article is considered a writer for that article, rather than a reviewer.

If there is a relevant, established precedent or common practice not explicitly outlined in our policies and guidelines, it would be helpful to identify it with links to discussions or diffs/edit summaries, etc. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

much more understandable however the statement still stand correctly and more sensing and no is again any rules or regulations about it but it is external matter Wich is it possible to retrieve it through it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falconermadrigala (talk • contribs)

Well, yes. I wrote 'Airplane crashed in Canada at 9am'. A reviewer published it and corrected it, 'Airplane crashed in Canada at 9:05am'. I, while being a 'reviewer who wrote the article', should be able (and should, if I am available and if I agree with the edit) to sight that edit. Do you agree? Gryllida (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reviewers cannot make large changes to an article without disqualifying themselves from independent review." sentence was written because then reviewers would approve content which they wrote themselves. In the scenario I am proposing, there is one person writing the edit and another person sighting the edit. It seems an irrelevant quote. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further: "a reviewer who authors an article is considered a writer for that article, rather than a reviewer" claim does not appear to be supported by anything. A person is an author of the edits he or she did. Only that. And that's what the person cannot self sight. Everything else is fine (from my perspective). Gryllida (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]