mention to Common.css or am i dumb? [09:28:53] what you mean like [09:29:26] [1/3] ```div { [09:29:26] [2/3] cool-property: "cool" [09:29:27] [3/3] }``` [09:29:29] ? [09:37:44] is that how you do it? 😭 then if you put in [09:37:46] [1/5] ``` [09:37:46] [2/5]

[09:37:46] [3/5] ... [09:37:47] [4/5] /div [09:37:47] [5/5] ``` [09:37:51] it would work? [09:50:36] [1/4] oh css for classes? [09:50:37] [2/4] ```.blah { [09:50:37] [3/4] rawr: "xd" [09:50:37] [4/4] }``` [09:53:00] Yea, i tried to add a div class and did the class thing in Common.css and its not working 😭 [09:54:25] what did you add? there might also be something overriding it, check with devtools/inspect element [09:56:46] i dont see anything overriding it [09:58:34] and it doesn't show? [10:01:00] no [10:15:57] <_arawynn> Have you purged the site? CSS can take a while to show up [10:17:39] what CSS code did you add exactly? [10:19:01] [1/19] ``` [10:19:01] [2/19] link-box { [10:19:01] [3/19] width: 200px; [10:19:02] [4/19] height: 50px; [10:19:02] [5/19] } [10:19:02] [6/19] link-box a { [10:19:03] [7/19] padding: 10px; [10:19:03] [8/19] } [10:19:04] [9/19] link-box { [10:19:04] [10/19] background-color: #4CAF50; [10:19:04] [11/19] } [10:19:05] [12/19] link-box:hover { [10:19:05] [13/19] background-color: #3e8e41; [10:19:05] [14/19] } [10:19:06] [15/19] link-box a { [10:19:06] [16/19] color: #fff; [10:19:07] [17/19] } [10:19:08] [18/19] ``` [10:19:08] [19/19] its from programmingcube.com [10:19:17] link-box is not a valid html element [10:19:29] if you want to select the link-box class, you need to replace `link-box` with `.link-box` in the CSS [10:19:59] see also [10:20:17] says 404 [10:20:23] but ill do this [10:22:34] oops, should work [10:23:32] i see, thank you ^^ [12:06:25] Your opinion/vote is requested for the following [[Request for Comment]](https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Generative_AI_policy) [12:06:26]

[12:34:37] does image width and image height work on discord for wikiseo? [13:08:07] So for claification, would this apply to all wikis? [13:08:59] Or is this only for Meta [13:12:39] While I'm not a fan of AI in the slightest, I feel like imposing such a broad restriction would not only be nigh impossible to enforce across even a fraction of all wikis, but it'd stir up a lot of drama due to the uncertainty of determining if content is 100% generated or not—this primarily goes for text. [13:14:58] It also seems to go against the general nature of Miraheze wikis being functionally "independent" (if you understand what I'm trying to say). While there are obvious rules and guidelines for wikis, this one feels oddly invasive? [13:15:01] the RFC is largely for all wikis except one of them for local [13:15:16] This is just my two-sense [13:15:24] I've just placed my votes down which largely endorse your two-sense [13:15:36] :p [13:16:09] but of course feel free to vote accordingly as that page is what will ultimately be tallied [13:16:42] [1/2] There are amendments too. [13:16:42] [2/2] They are less restrictive and based on Official wikis only [13:16:51] I voted on that one too [13:18:38] [1/2] Another factor (now this is entirely based on my experience surfing wikis and can obviously change with time), is I don't really feel like AI has been a problem for Miraheze wikis. Unless I'm unaware, I don't sense that there is an AI slop pandemic for wikis generally. And I understand the idea of getting ahead of the problem, but like I said, there just aren't the tools or presede [13:18:38] [2/2] nts currently to really enforce such rules. [13:19:44] It seems like something best left to the discretion of individual wikis/ [13:19:52] [1/2] The idea for this RfC was to restrict users in creating wikis only to fill with content completely made by AI, as well as adding multiple languages, they do not understand themselves. [13:19:52] [2/2] Everyone is responsible for their own wiki and text, and the chance that wiki text is presenting something wrong is increasing when you let users use AI without thinking about what text they get posting [13:20:25] Good start on the discussion. I'll post in the (minor) announcement channel too [13:20:27] I see regularly Wikirequests for AI stories [13:20:35] Hm, this is totally fair. [13:21:34] I'm not sure how to word this, but I feel like images are certainly the easier target to regulate. [13:21:34] <90gq29, replying to rodejong> AI stories? [13:21:51] I have the idea that most only read the proposal headlines unfortunately [13:21:52] Not only do images use far more server resources (at least, I assume), but spotting them is typically easier. [13:23:07] see, there is a bit of a gap between ai used partially to build up the wiki and if a wiki is completely and exclusively ai slop, the latter I would find far more problematic than the former but using blanket bans compromises a very broad valid use case for the former [13:23:21] Yup, "They ask the AI : Write a story and biographies for a wiki" and the AI spouts it out, and they post it. That's not how wikis should be created, as you never know whether its offensive, plain wrong, against US law, etc. [13:23:26] I feel like having a broad "no AI images" would be more reasonable simply in terms of being able to handle (for both wiki mods and Miraheze mods), and it's far easier to justify from a basic practical standpoint. Images have always had stricter regulations and they use more storage on average. [13:24:07] Storage is not even the problem. Copyright indeed is [13:24:09] I don't think a majority of the requestors know enough of this to say anything for sure regardless if hand written or they crank it out from a prompt, although the prompt is not encouraging [13:24:49] You underestimate them [13:25:00] GPT makes people lazy [13:25:31] I've seen enough of them myself over time to have arrived to my conclusion on that, gpt has replaced trains of text that may or may not even result in the wiki they requested because they decided they wanted to do something else [13:25:34] So, let's say this passes and all AI/LLM content is banned. Wikis with user bases would be able to enforce these new changes (at least somewhat). How would this go for single user wikis, however. [13:26:01] Just because I assume mods don't often scroll through every single person wiki to check if they comply (with how many there are). [13:26:32] it is an ongoing problem but imo gpt does not represent a decline of its own, I have a good example but it is bitterly political so I will have to table it [13:27:02] the otus is not and cannot really be on thel ocal communities to consistently enforce really any g lobal policy [13:27:32] wikis will either do their own thing regardless, have their own opinions in favor or against, or have limited tools to detect and enforce [13:27:32] Btw, semi-related I guess. Did that other bill for the queue AI pass? [13:27:42] yes, ai is utilized in the queue now [13:27:47] I have noticed that the queue has been shockingly short recently [13:27:58] `Write a story about a Miraheze volunteer that wants to prevent people from writing AI on their wikis, but other volunteers think that is restrictive. Let two volunteers discuss the pros and cons.` [13:27:59] [1/18] GPT: [13:28:00] [2/18] ```Volunteer 1: [13:28:00] [3/18] "I think we should restrict AI-related content on our wikis. It's a matter of ensuring our content is accurate and safe. AI topics can be misleading, especially when non-experts contribute." [13:28:00] [4/18] Volunteer 2: [13:28:01] [5/18] "I understand your concern, but isn't that a bit restrictive? AI is a rapidly growing field with diverse applications. Users might want to share knowledge and collaborate on AI-related projects. It could enhance our wiki's scope." [13:28:01] [6/18] Volunteer 1: [13:28:01] [7/18] "But think about misinformation. Without strict guidelines, we risk misleading readers. Not everyone can discern reliable AI information from speculative or even harmful content." [13:28:02] [8/18] Volunteer 2: [13:28:02] [9/18] "That's true, but we can have guidelines to ensure accuracy. Plus, AI is interdisciplinary; it touches on many topics our users are passionate about. Banning it outright might discourage valuable contributions." [13:28:02] [10/18] Volunteer 1: [13:28:02] [11/18] "I see your point. Perhaps instead of banning, we could have stricter review processes for AI-related pages. That way, we maintain quality without excluding potential contributors." [13:28:03] [12/18] Volunteer 2: [13:28:03] [13/18] "That sounds reasonable. We want to foster collaboration while upholding standards. Maybe we can create a dedicated AI section with clear guidelines. It could be a compromise between openness and quality control." [13:28:04] [14/18] Volunteer 1: [13:28:05] [15/18] "Exactly. By striking a balance, we respect both safety and innovation. It's about making Miraheze a reliable source for all types of knowledge, including AI, while protecting our users from misinformation." [13:28:05] [16/18] Volunteer 2: [13:28:05] [17/18] "I'm on board with that approach. Let's propose this to the community and see how we can implement it effectively. It's important to listen to everyone's concerns while moving forward." [13:28:06] [18/18] In this way, the volunteers discuss and find a middle ground, balancing the desire for openness with the need to maintain accuracy and safety on their wikis.``` [13:28:06] What's the new wait time looking at? [13:28:07] you can really tell when it hits a snag and it all goes manual again [13:28:21] Current backlog (oldest unhandled request) in request wiki queue is about 23 hours (13 requests). [13:28:38] the average can vary quite a bit [13:29:01] When people ask what I use and how to get their own wiki I typically hit them with everything I know about starting a wiki and this community. But I've been telling them to expect what the old wait time is 😅 [13:29:09] the gpt conversation presents an optimistic view on compromise [13:29:23] the old wait time is rather rare and again, only really happens when the ai is snagged [13:30:16] the big question for requestors is if it's automatically accepted or not, not is when it gets into wait though usually reasonable, especially because reviewers have more ability to actually chew the queue [13:30:54] I'm weary of lying to the queue for a favorable response and there have been attempts, but on the other hand it's not much different from saying something to woo manual reviewers and then doing your own thing [13:31:05] I feel like banning AI for wiki creation request is something that most (if not all) could get on board with. [13:31:20] It shows a fundamental lack of effort on behalf of the person requesting [13:31:22] I would consider that [13:31:59] It's already not allowed [13:32:00] And then I'd be fine (personally0 with banning AI images I suppose. [13:32:49] Then you get to AI text (the meat of most wikis) and that's where I get iffy on enforcement and detection and all of that. [13:33:16] But I recognize the concern of people creating wikis only to host chat GPT basically [13:33:17] "Please do not use ChatGPT or any other AI model: They are rarely clear or relevant enough, and increases the chance you will be asked to rephrase or explain in specific." [13:33:20] images I don't feel split far enough from text to be really considered separately [13:33:33] I think mr bob meant a flat ban and not just strongly discouraged [13:33:42] true [13:35:08] The split for me comes to enforcement. I can look at an AI image and (most of the time) go "ok, that's AI" and then if I was moderating a Miraheze wiki I'd be able to take action on it. I'm just concerned about people being accused or having their work deleted for false flags basically. [13:35:56] It's the same thing that's been happening in acedamia. Student's essays being falsely rejected and accussed of using generative tools. [13:36:08] for now they are fairly obvious, in the near future I expect that will not be the case and that is already happening too [13:36:23] plus I don't see as much of an inherent problem requiring policing [13:38:17] depending on the images and text at hand I think they both have a range from rather obvious (I get practice from spam chatbots on other platforms) to '...hmm', and the hmm is growing in both categories [13:38:32] but I grant the tells are easier to convey on images than they are on text [13:39:13] [1/2] Unrelated: Now that the queue is so much faster (for the most part), I wonder if we'll see a decrease in wikis with 0 edits. Not saying they'll be a decrease in abandoned wikis, but what you often see is that by the time a wiki is approved, these people have already lost their steam. With the wait being shorter, however, I wonder if these people will at least be able to get some [13:39:13] [2/2] basic edits in before giving up lol. [13:42:05] Their problem? [13:42:32] I'd just be surprised personally if someone can't even maintain interest in a wiki they requested only a day or two ago—at least when people were looking at anywhere from 5–10+ days there was a minuscule amount of understanding they had lost interest in the week that had passed; still pretty baffling though. [13:42:37] There are ampel examples on people working for monts based on a AI generated or Plagiated Thesis. It takes a while, but they are found out. That will become incresingly harder [13:42:59] that it will [13:43:00] There is a pull request I have to finish to implement something the community asked for a year ago [13:43:03] No, because we don't want wikis that are completely made by GPT [13:43:17] Fast track close no edit wikis [13:43:41] I'm suggestible to an idea of wikis that are head to toe AI generated being slapped down as that's a relatively clear distinction to make and leaves room for wikis to strike a compromise without actively legislating them [13:43:48] I skimmed earlier, none of the proposals seemed to state that intent of “soley AI” [13:43:59] I would agree with us being able to close wikis made by AI alone [13:44:11] What would the wait there be, a week, two weeks? [13:44:15] I would not agree with anything much more restrictive on local communities [13:44:27] Well I’ve had it open since October [13:44:41] ^ is a proposal I would likely support [13:44:44] But that’s a lot more me being a lazy ass I mean very busy IRK [13:44:54] I'm referring to how long it'd wait before closing a 0-edit wiki. [13:44:59] 💯 [13:45:02] Oh [13:45:08] [[DP]] [13:45:09]

[13:45:30] 30 deleted [13:45:50] Yeah a month sounds fair [13:46:04] are there known examples of wikis (Miraheze or not) that are majority AI-generated? (I'm curious to see what that look like) [13:47:05] Not that I'm aware. Could probably catch some on Fandom though. [13:47:29] Has Wikipedia Wikipedia brought up this concern yet? [13:48:01] They delete ai generated images of real people. That’s as much as I’m aware. [13:48:26] Mayor of Lagos (forgot his name) had an ai generated image in his info box and it was very off putting [13:48:37] You gotta be a unique person to try and upload AI portraits to Wikipedia, just saying. [13:49:04] I mean, what would the use-case for those even be? [13:49:16] https://wikiportaits.org my beloved [13:49:31] Lovecraft wiki also uses a ton of ai images [13:49:32] Ahem [13:49:35] https://www.wikiportraits.org/ [13:49:38] But for ai text idk [13:49:43] [1/2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intelligence#What_is_Wikipedia's_AI_policy? [13:49:44] [2/2] they have some policy about it [13:49:51] Are they the guys that set up booths at events? [13:50:00] Yup [13:50:02] So people with wiki pages can retake their photos [13:50:11] I had a sticker of them [13:50:18] I need more for my new laptop [13:50:19] May have one [13:50:20] Didn’t know their was an initiative for that [13:50:28] It’s very cool [13:50:43] When i worked as a photographer at a convention I wanted to do stuff like that but none of the people there had wiki articles [13:50:47] I was watching a conversation about them yesterday in the Wikimedia NUC chat [13:51:06] Yeah iirc copyright or consent and stuff prevents wikipedia from using most "available" images of people online, which is why most celebrity pages have similar backgrounds. [13:51:20] Yeah [13:51:24] Because they all generally come from events, which I guess are ok to use? [13:51:45] Images need to be CC [13:51:46] They require the photos to be under a free license or public domain [13:51:49] Or fair use in some cases [13:51:50] Also means a lot of them are outdated [13:51:52] you also need someone to take a decent photo in the first place [13:51:53] Exception is for deceased individuals [13:51:55] most choose to sell their work [13:52:01] No? [13:52:09] The photo is still copyrighted until it expires [13:52:13] They use fair use images for deceased [13:52:16]