A british inventor created a setup with two long vibrating plates with ferrofluid in between. A flaky powder made from garbage was dumped in on one side and came out the other end beautifully separated in many layers by density. (with one mixed layers in between that went back in at the beginning) Innitially he "knew" it was silly to use something as expensive as ferrofluid but planned to try other substances if it worked. It turned out the process produced a lot more ferrofluid than it used.
Calling it a resource suggests you don't contribute. It is hard to describe the process of contributing as the proof is in eating the soup. I could both describe it as easy to get started and a bureaucratic nightmare. Most editors are oblivious to the many guidelines which is specially interesting for long term frequent editors. This is the specific guideline of interest for your comment.
This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
> This rule, by itself, wouldn't pass muster in any ARBCOM proceeding I've ever witnessed, but if you've seen it work then by all means post a link to the proceedings.
I don't know that I've directly argued for IAR at ARBCOM, it's been too long ago. But my account hasn't been banned yet (despite all my shenanigans ;-) , which probably goes a long way towards some sort of proof.
To be sure, the actual rule is:
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. "
The first part is REALLY important. It says the mission is more important than the minutiae, not that you have a get out of jail free card for purely random acts.
It's a bureaucratic tiebreak basically. Things like "I'm testing a new process" , or "I got local consensus for this" , or "This looks a lot prettier than the original version, right?" ... are all arguments why your improvement or maintenance action may be valid; even if the small-print says otherwise. Even so, beware chesterton's fence. Like with jazz, it's a good idea to get a good grip on the theory before you leap into improvisation.
That, and, if you mean well, you're supposed to be able to get away with a lot anyway. Just so long as you listen to people!
In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is: 'will this action or change I'm about to execute be the right thing to do for this project?'
It is not even required to know any of the rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.
It's rather fascinating actually.
If things are judged by their creator you are left with nothing to judge the creator by. If you do it by their work the process becomes circular. Some will always be wrong, some always right, regardless what they say.
If you have a shallow understanding of the project, as Bryan clearly does, then you are incapable of answering that question.
And while you are right in some sense, the rules that have sprung up over the years are information about what the community decided 'right' was at the time.
> rules or guidelines and they are just articles that you can edit.
? No, you [a random hn user popping over to try what you suggested] cannot edit those pages, they are meta and semi-protected, last I checked. You, confirmed wikipedian 6510, can, assuming you are fine getting a reverted and a slap on the wrist.
In this case, the only thing noteworthy about this incident [an AfD I assume] is that included a rather entitled bot, rather than the usual entitled person.
To be absolutely fair to Bryan, their understanding appears to be improving rapidly with leaps and bounds, and they are being invited to help with improving policy on this.
Depends what modifications of the guideline you suggest. If you have somewhat radical ideas an essay is probably a better idea.
To clarify, I think the line between user and LLM contributions will get increasingly blurry. If they are constructive contributions it shouldn't make a difference.
Say I have an LLM check an article with some proof reading prompt and it suggests 50 small changes that look constructive to me. Should I modify the article now?
I mostly agree. It's too bad that they had to lock down some of the policies against drive-by vandalism, but in the main they're still supposed to be editable. I used to edit them quite a bit. It's basically part of the workflow : if you learn something: document it. (at least from my descriptive perspective; others may disagree)
Turns out AAA banks and high tech industry also like this idea, so I've been lucky enough to be a consultant on process documentation there too.
The problem is that many care more about presentation than substance. The irony gets overwhelming where boring is usually the best solution and the least exciting.
I have no idea how it should work specifically but it seems there could be something like a hash to refer to ones account in public without disclosing your email address.
The internet is full of terrible experiences with companies. Even without much exposure someone working for the company might be curious what the hell is going on.
The implementation leaves much to be desired but the EU actually requires reviews from real customers. Or more specific, you cant publish a review if you cant prove it is from a real customer.
Before he left I use to enjoy enraging a manager several layers above me. In one instance I explained that asking us to cut a few corners to get things done was fine, usually we can figure out acceptable ways of doing it. But then, it is your job to take those fake numbers and figure out how we are doing. No matter how much effort you make if bullshit goes in you know what will come out.
Now imagine an entire economy working like that. Like say, LLM's are good enough to run entire companies but you don't get to run a company because you are good at it. LLM's can perfectly manage employee schedules but the real job is more like marriage counseling or group therapy. Somewhere along the road we forgot which jobs make the economy go. They are probably the ones with the lowest salaries as those lack the effort of conjuring the job into existence.
Humanity needs obvious things cloths, food, housing, transportation etc but that isn't where the money is. The people cooking the books have the money and they are looking for something like a book cooking book. The market for openAI will be in lying convincingly for the benefit of the investor. Reality must be auctioned off like domain names or search engine placements. Altman is really the perfect guy for the job no one wants. ha-ha
Alternatively we could humble ourselves, ask the Chinese how reality works and attempt to steal their fu. It's just a thought.
You can do maintenance collectively and do it cheaply if everyone has the same system. I've somewhat explored some of these (in isolation ofc) and it's certainly fun to think about and interesting to see what has been done/tried.
We've actually been here before with higher languages. Assembly is actually a higher language, performance is much worse than machine code. It cant really self modify or do code generation. To squeeze all of the wine from the rock you do need 100 times more effort. C is luxurious compared to assembly. Python is even more productive. We don't use html/css/javascript because it is so fast, it's gawd aweful slow. I can however get something up and available to the world in less than a minute.
Then we pretend to be optimizing our websites for performance but we have no idea what code is triggered by our instructions. If the button responds in 0.2 seconds we are good. You know, the time it takes for the cpu to do 1-2 trillion instructions?
I read a story one time about a mysterious player who visited the casino one time per month. He would look at the table for many spins, make a single bet, win a small amount and leave. When he entered security was on high alert, they all had their eyes on the monitors, didn't see anything suspicious. When he left they would pull up the footage from his previous visits and examine it again. They did that every month and thought it was hilarious how he came to "steal" something like 50 bucks one time per month and got away with it every time.
No one was interested in further research.
edit: I see some research is now happening.
reply