Help desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 29

Chatbots

Can I use a chatbot to write an article as long as i clean it up, add citations, and remove untrue content? Blitzfan51 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you do this on your own device, and do it well, then copy the result to a Wikipedia draft, I don't see how anyone would even know, and it would just be you making use of a tool. However, I would be very cautious about placing the raw result in any Wikipedia space, because it might contain policy breaches you hadn't yet noticed and eliminated. It has been well-established by experiment that chatbots often synthesize untrue and even impossible statements, and "invent" spurious references to support them.

As I last understood it, Wikipedians were still debating a formal policy regarding use of AI chatbots in article composition, but I am likely behind the curve as I don't create articles myself (so far). Perhaps someone could point us to a statement of the current position? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't create anything as a fulll sized article on any AI, yet. It does make mistakes and errors as it reflects human intelligence and after a while you start to notice it. Consensus still seems to forming on it, as the technology develops. Hand written still seems to be the preferred and predominate method. One area I have seen where folk are using it, to analyse and summarise complex document that you perhaps you don't understand. But it is important to know that you can't mass copy content from the output onto Wikipedia. Your articles will be deleted wholesale or sent to Afc if its a single article. As it makes errors and you copy across, you might miss the mistakes and they become embedded in the article and if it became a habit, it would likely be a massive and fatal mistake as youll likely be show the out door. There is so many aspects that are unknown, I would limit to analysis only and write the stuff yourself. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blitzfan51 The full discussion and evolving policy is at WP:LLM and its Talk Page. You can contribute there with your views. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blitzfan51: Getting a chatbot to write and article and then search for citations seems like another WP:BACKWARD way to write articles. It's still better to collect the sources first, and then summarize the sources into an article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a voluntarily programmer that can genuinely assist in social impact work with no financial incentive

Due to a 2024 general election taking place in Indonesia,I am planning to help educate people from subsidized pre working project caleed PRAKERJA,nevertheless those who could pass this selection only shortlisted candidates. I mean, those candidates with special access with. Wondering if a kind hearted programmer can pave the way for those ordinary peopleto pass teh selection. if any, plese reach me at (redacted) 203.78.118.17 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Help Desk is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not for recruiting programmers. Please do not post your personal contact information. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Online safety bill

Morning folks!! I noticed this morning that the Online Safety Bill might mean that WP is blocked in the UK, and UK contributors like myself, although they're will be an exception for encylcopeadias. Does any folk know if there is a discussion anywhere on WP or meta discussing this. I really don't want to be thrown off. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 05:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage here. I can't find any discussion of this either, it is still early days. Wikipedia is not a porn site and Think of the children is a weak argument for forcing age verification. Lord Parkinson said that "the bill would probably not include Wikipedia and that it was focused on “only services which pose the highest risk to children will use age verification technologies”".[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that the UK may adopt the stance taken by Putin or Xi. Strange for a Conservative government. If WP is blocked I can foresee that it may well become an issue in the next general election, that is unless the Socialists are in agreement so that there is no choice. The VPN providers must be rubbing their hands with glee, a nice encrypted VPN emerging somewhere in the USA would get around a lot of problems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't solve the problem to use a VPN. You can access Wikipedia easily enough over a VPN, but you can't edit it (screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that only for IP users or for logged in users as well? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit over a VPN even when logged in. I'm not a technical expert, but many of the known VPN IP addresses cannot be used to do this. See also Block of Wikipedia in Turkey.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm editing through VPN services requires IP block exemption applied for via the Checkuser team (WP:IPECPROXY) as those are hardblocked when detected. If Wikipedia does end up being blocked in a country, I expect that would count as a need. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a path out of being blocked, which will be handy nearer the time if the exception is not made for an encyclopeadia, although I can't see why WP wouldn't be excepted. That is great. scope_creep^Talk 19:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep That's probably the first correct use of "excepted" that I have ever seen! David10244 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is blocked in China, as far as I'm aware, and I've seen IPBEs for editors in China. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources Question

If the only source is old newspaper articles that are collected from a local library, is this ok to create a Wikipedia page? 2603:9001:2D00:66BD:5C5:725D:FBA7:99AB (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute requirement that sources be available online. Most newspapers tend to be archived online somewhere though, so links to such archives can be useful, and may help you convince people that notability requirements have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When citing a source that is not available online, it is especially important to provide full details about the source. For a newspaper article, this would include the complete article title, the author(s) if known, the name of the newspaper, the date of publication, the page number(s), and the city if not part of the newspaper name. Template: Cite news is a useful tool to standardize the presentation of the data. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining images for an article

Throughout my time editing Wikipedia, one of the most confusing and difficult things to do has been to add images to an article. Uploading images tends be difficult unless it's something like a cover art, in which case a free use rationale is pretty easy to write up. Finding images that have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for whichever subject I'm editing is extremely rare. How do editors typically go about obtaining images that can be used in their article? For instance, I've been editing Good Christian Fun recently. If I wanted a picture of the hosts of the show what would I do? Should I contact the hosts and see if they are willing to upload a photo themselves? Can I do something to upload a picture without contacting them? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant There are topics like Women in the Bible which has more images than we can use, but it's not that common. For an article like Miles O'Brien (Star Trek), you can use one fair-use WP image, but for Colm Meaney you have to take it yourself or be lucky. For dead people there is fair use, but for the living, you may stumble on something like [2] (note the licensing mark below the image), but you probably won't. Some Youtube clips are uploaded with acceptable license, that sometimes work. Commons:File requests exist.

I have a few times, successfully, suggested to COI-people on WP that they can contribute an image, sometimes they even ask. I think there are editors who have tried to "reach out" to subject-people, perhaps sometimes with success. You could, for example, ask something like

"Hello, I'm a Wikipedia-editor, and I'd like to improve the WP-article Good Christian Fun with images of your hosts. If you think this is a good idea, please add a couple of images on your website marked with one of the "OK" licenses here [3] and I'll add it to the article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These may be of interest to you:

WP:Requesting_copyright_permission

WP:Example_requests_for_permission

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Spirit

I am a longtime editor but really feel that I am out of my depth here. Can someone glance over the edit history of Sword of the Spirit and suggest how we might attract more attention to this page? For the past month User:LinnCDoyle2 and I have disagreed about most edits each other has made; before I got involved, the same was happening between User:Linn C Doyle and User:Sudonymous. I think that most of the issues would be resolved if only some more editors would get involved. Or should I just keep going to WP:3O for every disagreement, line-by-line, such that every line generates a huge discussion on the talk page? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see WP:DR for this. And no, please do not spam 3O requests. 3O does not have to be every line, you can just use it on a summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia

How do you add a new music artist to Wikipedia? Jennifercipriotti (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First check that they will pass the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then look at Help: Your first article. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennifercipriotti It's hard to add new music artists to Wikipedia, because artists need to be established enough that multiple reliable, independent sources have written about them in depth (not just passing mentions) and that info has been published. Those are the sources on which to base an article. David10244 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I will learn how to use AIV, but in the meantime, can someone please warn User:SussyTheRealOne? They have three vandalism edits so far, which I fixed (I used ths red "vandalism" thing from their history for two of them). David10244 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is not a warning tool, it's a tool for blocking a user when they have offended after their 4th/final warning. You can see WP:WARN for how to warn people. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Thanks, I'll read about WARN. David10244 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. David10244 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a Page

On Wikipedia to publish a page on a living person. The first draft has 15 citations so I believe it fits Wikipedia's objectives. Working hard to edit existing pages; I have completed edits on seven pages thus far. I am in a hurry to become qualified and then publish a page as I have commitments on other writing for this person. When I have completed edits on 10 pages, what are the next steps to be allowed to publish a complete page. Thank you, John JohnOren (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to use the WP:AFC process, but what is the hurry? Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohnOren. I see no such draft in your edit history. If you are working on it off-Wikipedia, you should move it to your draft space or your sandbox space, so that other editors can review your work. If this person is compensating you for your writing, then you must make the mandatory Paid-contribution disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for guidance. Will put it in draft space so others may review. I will not have a need for paid-contribution disclosure as I am not being compensated. In contrast, I have spent my money to collect info. JohnOren (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you mean by, I have commitments on other writing for this person? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnOren And you can use the AFC process without having made 10 edits first. David10244 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohnOren. If you are here for the purpose of "publish[ing] a page on a [particular] person", then you probably have a conflict of interest, because that purpose might not be aligned with Wikipedia's purposes. If the person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then no article about them is possible, and your purpose is directly contrary to Wikipedia's. If your purpose is to celebrate the person, or to conversely to warn people about the person, then your purpose is not consistent with Wikipedia. And whatever your "commitments on other writing for this person" are, they are irrelevant to Wikipedia.

Having said all this, it doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't write an article about them. But it does mean that you should check your purpose in writing about them in Wikipedia, to make sure that you write from a neutral point of view, and that you take into account any reliable published sources about them, whether positive, negative, or neutral.

Part of the reason that new accounts cannot create articles directly is to encourage people to take the alternative approach of using the articles for creation process, which involves submitting a draft for review. Personally I would advise any new editor against trying to create an article directly until they've successfully created several by AFC - and actually, I'd advise against trying to create an article in any way before having a few weeks' or months' experience making improvements to existing articles and thereby learning some of Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and neutrality. People who try to create articles before they have learnt enough about Wikipedia often have a miserable and frustrating time. ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohnOren, you have not yet answered the reasonable question that Orangemike asked. Specifically, Then what do you mean by, I have commitments on other writing for this person?. When you answer this question, please do so at length, telling all the truth, and avoiding any evasion or errors by omission. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of Wikipedia:Your concerns are well-founded. I am aware of much non-neutral content on the site and I share your concerns. Non-neutral content easily noticed due to so much truly neutral content. In retirement, I am using Wikipedia even more to learn about people, molecular biology, and other topics. Conflict of interest document quite comprehensive, but I have experience with legal docs, so is not daunting. I offer compliments on it. Separate from Wikipedia page, I am writing a summary of news source citations of my subject, however that may not reach a comprehensive level as the quantity of citations exceed 300. I will not be paid for that, either. My draft article has 15 citations, final may have two to four more. Article and citations I have written conform to Wikipedia standards. Confident review will be favorable. Will post draft article in a day or so. JohnOren (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohnOren I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned this. You say, "The first draft has 15 citations so I believe it fits Wikipedia's objectives." I'm not sure how 15 citations fit Wikipedia's objectives, so I wonder if you meant Wikipedia's criteria for publication--specifically, the criterion of notability. But then, 15 citations won't necessarily establish notability. If they are 15 citations that mention the person's name in passing, that won't do it. If they are 15 citations from that persons blogs or CV or resume, that won't do it, either. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this redirect?

Ritz-Epps Fitness Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) What should be done with this redirect? It currently points to Fort Bragg, which contains the centre. The article was merged into Fort Bragg, but the merged content was removed shortly after it was added. I'm not quite sure if I should:

A. Restore the merged content;

B. Send the redirect to RfD;

or C. Do something else entirely.

Any ideas on how I should proceed? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that this very minor issue is out in the open, Mako001, I suppose one shouldn't just deal with it summarily, but should instead bring it up at RfD. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: That makes sense, I will probably do so shortly. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]