Wikipedia

CoderThomasB

Joined 9 August 2021
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxnaCarta (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 28 April 2023 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MaxnaCarta in topic A barnstar for you!
Learn more about this page

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Te Rapa Co-generation

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi CoderThomasB, I have found several useful sources in newspaper articles available through Pro-Quest. I am able to login to ProQuest for free, using my Wellington City Libraries card details. Hopefully, you may have a library that also provides access to Pro-quest. If you can't get access to ProQuest, please get back to me and I will see if I can help. Here is what I have found so far. Some of these are more background about the dairy factory, but many deal directly with the Co-gen plant:

The content about the dairy factory in the article Te Rapa could be expanded using some of the sources above, if you are keen. I will keep looking for different sources and get back to you later in the week, hopefully :) Marshelec (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Unfortunately, I can't seam to access those articles using my Christchurch library card.  
But I have added a little bit more to the Article about Fonterra's consent to set up an auxiliary boiler that is used when the cogeneration plant isn't operating. CoderThomasB (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It appears I can download them from ProQuest as PDF's so I will put them into a folder in OneDrive that I will share with you.Marshelec (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
See if you can access the shared folder of PDFs I downloaded here: [1]. However, I have found that you can access ProQuest using the Wikipedia library. :) Go to the Wikipedia library here: [2] (I suggest you save this link where you can find it again) . Just login with your Wikipedia credentials, then you can access multiple subscription databases, including ProQuest. Once you are in ProQuest, you will be able to find the sources I have listed (and others no doubt). Please get back to me to let me know how you get on. Note that when using a cite web template for a source that requires a subscription, you should include |url-access=subscription| into the citation....Marshelec (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have just searched again in ProQuest using the search terms Te Papa Cogeneration, and got 40 hits. These includes several useful looking responses that are additional to those in the list above. Another point about citing these sources: it is recommended to add |via=ProQuest| in the citation...Marshelec (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I'll get to work on using those articles. Your suggestion about the Wikipedia library works, and I am able to access those articles and search ProQuest! CoderThomasB (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Great stuff. One observation is that the Fonterra plant is so significant in national terms that it warrants its own article - separate from Te Rapa. I recommend a split, leaving behind a brief summmary in the Te Rapa article, with a MAIN template. See WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. Are you interested in taking that on ? Marshelec (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll have a read through of those guidelines and maybe consult with Schwede66, but I do think that is a sensible thing to do. I'll look into it once I have added what I want to add to the Te Rapa Co-generation article. CoderThomasB (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure. I am happy to help out with guidance about the proposed splitting, but it is a good learning experience to do it yourself, if you have not done this before. Note that a split as proposed is not controversial, and does not warrant consultation on the talk pages. You can just go ahead and do it when you are ready. Marshelec (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

When is it appropriate to use content initially generated by an LLM?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your important work maintaining Wikipedia! And for checking [my edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebAssembly&diff=prev&oldid=1149510377&diffmode=source) so quickly, and [letting me know that it might not be appropriate](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chadoh#An_edit_that_you_recently_made_seemed_to_be_generated_using_a_large_language_model). I was unaware of the draft policy around LLM use; good to know.

I believe this is actually a case where using text originally sourced from an LLM is ok. I'll go through the guidelines and explain how my edit adhered to each, but let me start by explaining why I wanted this edit: I was working on documentation for a new blockchain project that uses Wasm, and I wanted a single word of that documentation to link to an authoritative website or page that lists all of the places where Wasm is used. One of the first places I looked was, of course, the Wikipedia page, specifically the Implementations section. I and my collaborators know enough about WebAssembly to know that this section of the Wikipedia article was far from complete! Failing to find a better list, I thought the best possible place for the information would be Wikipedia.

My teammate asked GPT-4 (I do not pay for it myself), and its list was a much better starting point than Wikipedia's. It had a couple small errors, which I corrected, and I added links to all of the projects it listed, so that any reader need only click them to verify that each does, in fact, use WebAssembly.

Ok, now let's go through those guidelines:

1. You may not ask neural networks to write original content and find sources. Even if such content was heavily edited, seek other alternatives that don't use the neural network's original content.

The "original content" was, in this case, mostly just a list. I edited this list and made it more appropriate for Wikipedia.

2. You may use these neural networks as a writing advisor, i.e. asking for outlines, asking how to improve the paragraph, asking for criticism for the text, etc. However, you should be aware that the information it gives to you can be unreliable and flat out wrong. Use due diligence and common sense when choosing whether to incorporate the neural network's suggestion or not.

I used due diligence and common sense; I am an expert in the field.

3. You may use these neural networks for copyediting and paraphrasing, but note that it may not properly detect grammatical errors or keep the key information intact. Use due diligence and do heavily edit the response from the neural network.

I did.

4. You are responsible for making sure that using neural network will not be disruptive to Wikipedia. Therefore, you must denote that a neural network was used in the edit summary.

I did.

5. LLMs are not reliable sources. Unless their outputs were published by reliable outlets with rigorous oversight, they should not be cited in our articles.

I didn't cite one.

6. Wikipedia is not a testing ground for large language models. The use of Wikipedia for experiments or trials is forbidden.

I did not use Wikipedia as an experiment or trial.

7. You must not use LLMs to write your comments.

I did not.

Chadoh (talk) Chadoh (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reaching out and taking the time to write a response! My decision to revert your edit came from a discussion in the tree house, which you can find a link to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Spotted_an_edit_that_adds_text_in_an_non-encyclopedic_tone_using_an_LLM._Opinions
In that discussion, the main focus was that the edit made a prediction in wikivoice "so-and-so is going to happen" rather than stating who made the prediction "This person predicts that so-and-so is going to happen". On that discussion, you can also find some other feedback to take into consideration when making edits to Wikipedia. If you want to, you can take that feedback and make a new edit that complies with Wikipedia tone of voice and editing guidelines. I would also advise that you read Wikipedia:Core content policies if you haven't done so already, alongside that tree house discussion. - CoderThomasB (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Minor barnstar
Well done on approaching the Teahouse for help after identifying an article you thought did not belong on Wikipedia. I think you should consider going over to the Vandalism Academy and asking Cass to mentor you and train you on anti-vandalism. Anti-vandalism is quite a lot of fun to learn and you will get to work with a trained and experienced editor who can mentor you. The ant-vandalism course helps develop editors to detect people damaging the project. However it also teaches you a raft of tools and guidelines that any editor needs to know, For someone with 250 edits to pick up an article as you did and reach out correctly for help shows you have attention to detail and the temperament we need here. Welcome and please do stay with Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CoderThomasB&oldid=1152080958"