Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ce |
→Inclusion criteria: reflect minimum consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Shortcuts inclusion criteria (in fact consensus might be even more restricted) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 75:
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Inclusion criteria}}}|Inclusion criteria|
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect '''two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the source's reliability that took place on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]'''. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
Please do not mass-create shortcuts. Only shortcuts with at least one use should be included on this list.
}}</onlyinclude>
Line 131 ⟶ 133:
==Categories==
===Large language models<span class="anchor" id="ChatGPT"></span>===
{{shortcut|WP:RSPLLM|WP:RSPCHATGPT}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Large language models}}
Per the [[WP:RSML|guideline on sources produced by machine learning]], [[large language model]]s (LLMs) such as [[ChatGPT]] and other [[AI chatbot]]s are unreliable. While LLMs are trained on a vast amount of data and generate responses based on that, they can often provide [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|inaccurate or fictitious]] information. The essay [[Wikipedia:Large language models]] recommends against using LLMs to generate references. See {{slink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408|ChatGPT}}.
| |||