User talk:Levivich: Difference between revisions
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:@[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]]: FWIW, if you appealed it, I'd vote to overturn it (as would many others it seems), but I understand your reasons for not wanting to appeal it and instead walking away. As you know, I made the same choice a few months ago, and my only regret is that I didn't make that choice sooner. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
:@[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]]: FWIW, if you appealed it, I'd vote to overturn it (as would many others it seems), but I understand your reasons for not wanting to appeal it and instead walking away. As you know, I made the same choice a few months ago, and my only regret is that I didn't make that choice sooner. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
:What did I miss? Have the civility cops been oppressing somebody for speaking out? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) |
:What did I miss? Have the civility cops been oppressing somebody for speaking out? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
::No, it was just much adieu about nothing. Levivich, actually I think the example you set might be suggestive to me. A desire to leave what can seem a pure waste of one's time, yet tempered in time by exercising an option, or indeed, retaining a right, to intervene, even if only now and then. I've never allowed our strong disagreements to get in the way of the obvious, the obligation to recognize your fine critical intelligence in getting complex administrative issues sorted out with clarity and acumen, and that is rare round here. I suggest you leave yourself open to recall, or exercise your right, to help out when that kind of thing gets out of hand. It may indeed strike one as a Greek tragedy, but with good reason, one might soften the blow by considering it much of a piece with [[Menander]]. Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:42, 21 August 2023
Feel free to push my button:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Generative AI and Wikipedia research
Hi Levivich,
My name is Dr. Tim Koskie and I am a researcher at the Centre for Media Transition (CMT) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). We are conducting a study on the implications of content-generating AI systems such as ChatGPT for knowledge integrity on Wikipedia, and are approaching you because you have participated in discussions on this topic on Wikimedia pages.
If you are interested, we would like to invite you to participate in our study. It would involve joining either a focus group discussion or an interview (around 1 hour), in person at Wikimania in Singapore if you are going to be there, or online at a future date. At these sessions we would ask you questions about how you think generative AI will impact Wikipedia, as well as about the kinds of work you do on Wikipedia.
The project is funded by the Wikimedia Research Fund grant programme. You can find out more about the project here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Implications_of_ChatGPT_for_knowledge_integrity_on_Wikipedia If you are interested, let me know and I will forward you some more detailed information on the project. Tbkoskie (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
other editors were commenting, too
Thanks for your input on User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Fundraising RfC. I suspect you had the editing window open awhile to write that wall of text because you ended up removing others' comments in violation of WP:REFACTOR. I've restored what was lost. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Chris, I hadn't even noticed. Thanks for fixing it. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a friendly word of irony
If using the word 'extraordinary' is cause for a suspension, then so is saying (quite correctly) 'rather unbelievable' with regard to another editor's stance:) Be careful, but I doubt whether you are on anyone's hitlist:) Regards Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a Greek tragedy. Levivich (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: FWIW, if you appealed it, I'd vote to overturn it (as would many others it seems), but I understand your reasons for not wanting to appeal it and instead walking away. As you know, I made the same choice a few months ago, and my only regret is that I didn't make that choice sooner. Levivich (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- What did I miss? Have the civility cops been oppressing somebody for speaking out? Jehochman Talk 12:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, it was just much adieu about nothing. Levivich, actually I think the example you set might be suggestive to me. A desire to leave what can seem a pure waste of one's time, yet tempered in time by exercising an option, or indeed, retaining a right, to intervene, even if only now and then. I've never allowed our strong disagreements to get in the way of the obvious, the obligation to recognize your fine critical intelligence in getting complex administrative issues sorted out with clarity and acumen, and that is rare round here. I suggest you leave yourself open to recall, or exercise your right, to help out when that kind of thing gets out of hand. It may indeed strike one as a Greek tragedy, but with good reason, one might soften the blow by considering it much of a piece with Menander. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)