[04:48:06] Who's there? [04:48:57] [discord] We are here, and hoping this isn't a question about rangerkid. 🙂 [04:49:18] Ok. [04:49:46] If it about RLVW? [04:50:57] [discord] RLVW? [04:51:04] [discord] Real life Villains wiki [04:51:10] [discord] ah yes [04:51:41] [discord] Reporter: a claim was already filed on SN, I believe. the most appropriate venue for your concerns would be there, if the ticket has not already been closed [04:51:48] [discord] SN = steward's noticeboard [04:52:16] That wiki need rebrand to Bad People Wiki. If for RLHW, Good People Wiki. [04:52:39] [discord] That's a question to be taken up locally on that wiki, we have no juridiction over that. [04:52:50] [discord] Please take that up with local bureaucrats, we have no ability to influence changw there. [04:52:51] It okay if not closed. [04:53:06] OK. [04:53:36] [discord] RLV isn't doing so well, a fork would be worse [04:53:44] [discord] Please take that up with local bureaucrats, we have no ability to influence change there. (edited) [04:54:28] I feel like LB never active. [04:54:58] [discord] Again, our apologies, but we can't help you with that here. [04:55:42] [discord] what's up with real life villains again [04:55:45] [discord] I've kicked them [04:55:49] thx [04:55:52] [discord] thank you [04:56:02] [discord] ok got it [04:56:19] Probably should've been done a while ago in retrospect [04:56:27] so sorry to everyone who had to deal with them [04:56:30] [discord] agree 👍 [04:56:57] [discord] no worries at all, thanks for the kick [04:57:20] [discord] @NotAracham circling back to this real quick, not sure if you know if it's possible to remove this? [04:57:34] [discord] as a wiki creator maybe you have some knowledge on it, not sure [04:57:50] [discord] It is not [04:57:59] [discord] I don't think it'll be removed any time soon [04:58:15] [discord] We're working on tapping into AI for CreateWiki so... 👀 [04:58:38] [discord] ooh that could be interesting 👀 [04:58:42] [discord] any timetable for that? [04:58:49] [discord] No [04:58:50] [discord] Yeah, not going away, but might actually be used for something... sometime [04:58:57] [discord] Any time from today to 3 years [04:59:01] [discord] anyone know what it was originally used for? [04:59:10] [discord] the approval rating thing [04:59:14] [discord] To possibly never, should the bandwidth never free up to make it happen [04:59:15] [discord] That's the score that the CreateWiki AI rates a reauest [04:59:19] [discord] That's the score that the CreateWiki AI rates a request (edited) [04:59:25] [discord] It rates it from 0.0 to 1.0 [04:59:26] [discord] ah, and it was rated from 0 to 1? [04:59:28] [discord] gotcha [04:59:58] [discord] assuming when you say tapping into AI you mean make it more user-friendly for the average user to miraheze? [05:00:07] [discord] like more understandable and such? [05:00:29] [discord] No, I'm talking about actually using AI to auto approve or decline requests as we originally envisioned [05:00:45] [discord] ..oh [05:00:52] [discord] that could be extremely helpful [05:01:11] [discord] E.g. if a person just typed the word 'butts' as their discription for the wiki request, that's an auto-decline with a request for more details [05:01:24] [discord] would assume the AI will make mistakes though, there's not a fool-proof way to design it [05:01:49] [discord] maybe something for the AI to classify certain wiki requests that it isn't sure about for human review? [05:01:58] [discord] don't know if that's even possible but just a thought [05:03:24] [discord] It would only approve wikis with a score of over 0.9 [05:03:30] [discord] all others would go to WCs to review [05:03:45] [discord] It'd also auto decline those with a score of less than 0.4 [05:04:02] [discord] how many of the current wiki requests that are approved are over 0.9 [05:04:17] [discord] There are obvious challenges w/ the new content policy, though. e.g. identifying wikis that are duplicated by a request [05:04:30] [discord] No idea, no one looks at those stats [05:04:32] [discord] but the request still scores .9+ [05:04:38] [discord] yes, and theoretically some user could just make a request long enough to fool the AI [05:04:54] [discord] It's very low, honestly [05:05:48] [discord] I've made 3 wiki requests in my time here, only one of those 3 reached .9 [05:06:04] [discord] Well no, AI is rather smart. It looks for a combination of things [05:06:43] [discord] Currently, our AI is trained by recognizing similar requests that we've approved in the past, which we've declined, and has a list of blacklisted words I believe [05:06:51] [discord] i remember someone asking chatgpt something like "mary's mother has 2 children. one is named bob. what is the other child named?" and it couldnt figure it out or something lmaoo [05:06:57] [discord] but yea thats kinda smart [05:06:59] [discord] but we don't really trust it 100% and it's really memory intensive [05:07:07] [discord] we might tap into ChatGPT [05:07:12] [discord] which is the plan potentially [05:07:17] [discord] hmm [05:07:19] [discord] this could actually work [05:07:20] [discord] i see [05:07:22] [discord] Yeah, I strongly distrust the current AI implementation [05:07:39] [discord] ChatGPT could be extremely useful if it can tap into Miraheze CreateWiki logs [05:07:43] [discord] There was a request today that got 0.92 but was so remedial I almost declined with a request for more details [05:07:56] [discord] we could theoretically design an extension exclusively for Miraheze [05:08:09] [discord] That means someone is approving really short requests and is confusing the AI! [05:08:14] [discord] Time to demote every WC [05:08:15] [discord] lol [05:08:24] [discord] Couldn't be me. I would never. 😄 [05:08:27] [discord] That means someone is approving really bad requests and is confusing the AI! (edited) [05:08:34] [discord] lmao [05:08:36] [discord] lmao [05:09:32] [discord] One of the core things that's probably confounding it is private vs public wikis, since the private ones are by nature usually much shorter. [05:09:36] [discord] would be interesting if the AI could also be trained by seeing what wikis we've deleted and using that as a model of what wikis to not accept [05:10:02] [discord] assuming there's a log of wikis deleted? [05:10:08] [discord] yeah [05:10:12] [discord] It's miles long [05:10:14] [discord] the other problem with that could be that the deletion reason isn't visible to the AI [05:10:29] [discord] Now that would be VERY interesting. It'd also need some amount of semantic capability, which is where ChatGPT comes in [05:10:37] [discord] the wiki creator could've just marked the wiki closed because they didn't want to work on it anymore [05:10:45] [discord] as opposed to stewards closing for CP violations [05:10:51] [discord] or something of the sorty [05:10:52] [discord] or something of the sort (edited) [05:10:59] [discord] We do have actor ID and a role table, which solves for that [05:11:03] [discord] a wiki bureaucrat could've just marked the wiki closed because they didn't want to work on it anymore (edited) [05:11:04] [discord] At least partly [05:11:16] [discord] ik its not what you meant to say but that made me think of "child pornography violations" lmao [05:11:22] [discord] Well, manual closures are different than dormancy closures [05:11:36] [discord] Yeah, it's an unfortunate acronym. At MH, CP = Content Policy [05:11:38] [discord] if ChatGPT could interpret deletion reasons then that could work [05:11:39] [discord] A list of manual wiki deletions is available on Meta [05:11:49] [discord] vs dormancy closings which actually aren't logged anywhere [05:12:00] [discord] no i mean if the user just decides to close the wiki by themselves [05:12:12] [discord] which has happened before i believe because they just get tired of it [05:12:13] [discord] And frankly our content policy does cover that too [05:12:17] [discord] Closure is not the same as a deletion though [05:12:29] [discord] closures lead to deletions though right [05:12:32] [discord] Marking a wiki as private is different than us actually deleting a wiki [05:12:36] [discord] closure for more than 3 months or something [05:12:36] [discord] [05:12:37] [url] ManageWiki log - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [05:12:48] [discord] look at the ManageWiki log to get an idea of that [05:12:56] [discord] ah gotcha [05:13:21] [discord] what's the policy re deleted wikis because of inactivity [05:13:44] [discord] like if a wiki that was NBA focused or something decided to shut down, and after it was deleted a new wiki request was created in that same scope [05:13:45] [discord] consider this term outdated, people tend to refer to that as SCEM [05:13:54] [discord] i think you mean CSAM [05:13:59] [discord] or SCRM [05:14:18] [discord] CSAM means child sexual abuse material, SCRM means sexual content regarding minors [05:14:28] [discord] ......does this need to be said 😅? [05:14:29] [discord] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Dormancy_Policy would be that policy [05:14:30] [url] Dormancy Policy - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [05:14:33] [discord] this is getting offtopic now [05:14:38] [discord] yea it is lmao sorry [05:15:02] [discord] Also worth remembering that MH is a global community and acronyms aren't the same globally. 🙂 [05:15:08] [discord] oh fair [05:15:29] [discord] also content policies are pretty much everywhere now where people create/publish things [05:16:32] [discord] Ah yes, the CP, DP, UP, UAP, RFCP, and much more [05:16:38] [discord] Thank you acronyms, very cool! [05:16:54] [discord] I've got a page for this! [05:17:08] [discord] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/User:NotAracham/Miraheze:Acronyms_and_Abbreviations [05:17:08] [url] User:NotAracham/Miraheze:Acronyms and Abbreviations - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [05:17:11] [discord] don't forget RfC, RfP, RfA, RfGR, WC, GS, SRE, and more! 😂 [05:17:19] [discord] i know just some of those [05:17:22] [discord] oh and soon the GCP, VCP and MSCOC [05:17:33] [discord] :moonch: [05:17:35] [discord] 👏 just saw this @NotAracham, great job on it btw [05:17:55] [discord] I saw a need so I started writing. 😄 [05:17:58] [discord] Global Content Policy? Video Content Policy? Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct? [05:18:04] [discord] not sure if i got them correct [05:18:36] [discord] RfC, RfP, RfA, RfRW, RfGR, RfU, RfS, RfF, RfCU, and more [05:18:47] [discord] :thistbh: [05:18:49] [discord] Volunteer Conduct Policy* [05:18:56] [discord] :thistbh: [05:19:02] [discord] ah, gotchu [05:19:14] [discord] bravo on that, have a feeling it'll help a lot of new users [05:19:29] [discord] I think no one is probably familiar with RfU at least [05:19:42] [discord] Requests for Unlock? [05:20:06] [discord] No, it's for an extremely obscure process that literally no one's about and Stewards never enforce [05:20:16] [discord] No, it's for an extremely obscure process that literally no one's heard about and Stewards never enforce (edited) [05:20:35] [discord] is it on NotAracham's thing [05:20:48] [discord] It is not [05:20:54] [discord] what is it [05:21:03] [discord] Not sure... yet [05:21:05] [discord] out of curiousity [05:21:07] [discord] lmao [05:21:47] [discord] The ones that aren't documented: [05:21:47] [discord] [05:21:49] [discord] RfA [05:21:50] [discord] RfGR (momentarily) [05:21:51] [discord] RfU [05:21:52] [discord] RfS [05:21:54] [discord] RfCU (momentarily) [05:22:05] [discord] Requests for CheckUser I'm assuming [05:22:15] [discord] Yep, and global rights on the other. [05:22:30] [discord] Unless someone's getting feisty and making their own acronym for global rollbacker [05:22:40] [discord] lol [05:22:46] [discord] apart from GR, I haven't seen any [05:23:16] [discord] lol [05:23:26] [discord] RfGRO [05:24:33] [discord] Interesting. So far, I only used ChatGPT to make up fictional recipes for my fantasy world, or to make my articles more detailed. Is that allowed? [05:25:13] [discord] Yeah, that's allowed. Nothing in our ToU that prohibits ~~our robot overlords~~ AI from being used [05:25:45] [discord] 😁 [05:34:23] [discord] Alright, a mess of new Rf[X] have been added to the acronym page [05:34:25] [discord] Huzzah [05:37:48] [discord] yay! [05:38:06] [discord] no RfU tho 😦 [05:38:55] [discord] It is the forbidden entry (that nobody actually remembers what it is) [05:39:10] [discord] It's largely irrelevant and no one needs to know about it \:P [05:40:55] [discord] Request for Unmaking, Request for Unobservance, Request for Universality, whatever it is, it's not part of this plane of existence any longer. [05:42:35] [discord] oof [05:43:44] [discord] that gives me an idea [05:43:56] [discord] i could get chatgpt to write wiki pages [05:43:57] [discord] 🤔 [05:44:12] [discord] I already sorta did that lol [05:44:28] [discord] Tho, it wasn't completely AI-written. I made adjustments for it, added the links, added the templates, etc. [05:46:34] [discord] There was a fun wiki request that was unfortunately not approved because the requester didn't reply to questions. [05:46:34] [discord] Free labor lol [05:47:01] [discord] But that was their entire premise. A wiki documenting a fictional world, 100% written by a procedural generation AI [05:47:30] [discord] I would have liked to see that, even if it was the most beige world of all time. [05:48:35] [discord] that would've been so cool [05:48:59] [discord] could i request this wiki by any chance [05:49:06] [discord] would be cool to see what i could do with it [05:49:08] [discord] chatgptwiki [05:49:14] [discord] `chatgptwiki` (edited) [05:49:19] [discord] Knock yourself out [05:49:32] [discord] requestwikiblocke [05:49:34] [discord] requestwikiblocked (edited) [05:49:41] [discord] indeed [05:49:50] [discord] let me dm you [05:49:59] [discord] I think we unfortunately had this exact request come through earlier. [05:50:04] [discord] I'll have to check the queue to confirm. [05:50:36] [discord] I'd probably give the requester more time before approving a new request with a similar scope [05:50:52]