Revision as of 15:34, 16 October 2024 edit Mathglot (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 92,586 edits →Chatbots as valid sources or identifiers of them: Expand. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:34, 16 October 2024 edit undo Mathglot (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 92,586 edits →Chatbots as valid sources or identifiers of them: Better. Next edit →
Line 60: :I kind of agree as well. However, Google and Bing also index unreliable sources. I was initially going to put in a query "find reliable sources for $1" but then decided against it for some reason. [[User:Awesome Aasim\|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim\|Aasim]] 14:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC) :: That is, of course, true. However, I have never seen Google or Bing invent a very convincing-looking source out of whole <s>cloth</s> bits, creating authors who do not exist, or very complex and scholarly-looking titles that look real but do not exist (but are quite similar to pieces of other titles that do exist), and so on. If the task assigned were to add sources to an article that do not exist but would rarely get challenged, AI bots are definitely the way to go. It's quite possible vandals or lazy or clueless editors are doing this already, and it is a problem that will have to be addressed at some point. [[User:Mathglot\|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot\|talk]]) 15:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Module talk:Find sources: Difference between revisions