[08:11:08] Yes let's get the terminology clear everywhere. [08:11:09] Do we have a glossary somewhere yet? [08:11:10] maybe a graphical overview highlighting the differences would be helpful? (re @lucaswerkmeister: cross-posting for visibility: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions_talk:Status_updates/2025-09-26#Reuse_of_the_term_...) [08:27:30] We have Wikifunctions:Glossary, but it does not yet include entries for “claim”, “qualifier” or this sense of “reference”. It lists “statement” and “property”, but without connecting them to the traditional terminology of “proposition”, “subject” and “predicate”. (re @Npriskorn: Yes let's get the terminology clear everywhere. [08:27:31] Do we have a glossary somewhere yet? [08:27:33] maybe a graphical overview highlighting the...) [08:31:47] [[Wikifunctions:Glossary]] [09:01:42] I added claim and snak with examples. The statement entry is still missing an example (re @Al: We have Wikifunctions:Glossary, but it does not yet include entries for “claim”, “qualifier” or this sense of “reference”. It li...) [09:04:49] That’s nicely done, thank you. 🌟 (re @Npriskorn: I added claim and snak with examples. The statement entry is still missing an example) [09:07:23] Full disclosure: I did not write a single word of it 😅, credit goes to chatgpt for producing the text. (re @Al: That’s nicely done, thank you. 🌟) [09:07:55] Oh, seems we need a genAI policy on WIkifunctions too. [09:10:43] yeah, lets work smarter not harder. I find it useful to help me design composition functions too on a high level (re @Jan_ainali: Oh, seems we need a genAI policy on WIkifunctions too.) [09:11:17] I guess it should at least be disclosed in the edit summary. (re @Jan_ainali: Oh, seems we need a genAI policy on WIkifunctions too.) [09:12:04] I think, like on enwiki, the important part is that it's not possible to blame (or credit) some other entity than the user making the edit. Full responsibility must be held. [09:17:48] I like this, lets make it dead simple for the user then, add a checkbox below the edit summary or a dedicated save-button? (re @Al: I guess it should at least be disclosed in the edit summary.) [09:18:23] What would a checked box imply? [09:19:55] It could say "I used a chatbot to assist with this edit" or similar and we have an additional signal used to flag edits for review. Ie new user + removing edit + ai assist = flag for review [09:20:26] No, that would implied it is normalized or even encouraged. Let's stick to having people manually type it. [09:23:51] Hm. Are there any editors _not_ using chatbots to assist with edits on a regular basis? I don't have problems with it as long as people are kept responsible and source their statements. (We are getting offtopic here, I suggest moving this discussion somewhere onwiki that can include a wider audience) (re @Jan_ainali: No, that would imply it is normalized or even [09:23:51] encouraged. Let's [09:23:52] stick to having people manually type it.) [09:26:30] How could discussing policies for the project be offtopic in the project's Telegram group? (re @Npriskorn: Hm. Are there any editors _not_ using chatbots to assist with edits on a regular basis? I don't have problems with it as long as...) [09:29:51] Fair. I suppose it depends on the prompts. Like: “this is an automated translation by ChatGPT” versus “distilled from Wikidata by ChatGPT, prompt “what’s a ‘claim’ on Wikidata?” (…or whatever). It’s not a disclaimer, just a prompt for a different approach to review, perhaps. (re @Jan_ainali: I think, like on enwiki, the important part is that it's not possible message> [09:29:52] to blame (or credit) some other entity than the user makin...) [09:30:54] I don’t understand the point of adding a known to be disputed term to the Glossary without even mentioning that it’s disputed (re @Npriskorn: I added claim and snak with examples. The statement entry is still missing an example) [09:31:31] (and I also don’t understand the point of disclosing in Telegram, but not on-wiki, that “your” edit was generated by “AI”. are you expecting everyone who looks at the page history to also look through all your Telegram messages that were sent around the same time?) [09:31:39] I suggested moving to the wiki to include others and document it for posterity. (re @Jan_ainali: How could discussing policies for the project be offtopic in the project's Telegram group?) [09:32:45] Feel free to improve it with a link to it being disputed. I searched and did not find a clear source for it being disputed. (re @lucaswerkmeister: I don’t understand the point of adding a known to be disputed term to the Glossary without even mentioning that it’s disputed) [09:33:37] no, I reacted to the praise. (re @lucaswerkmeister: (and I also don’t understand the point of disclosing in Telegram, but not on-wiki, that “your” edit was generated by “AI”. are y...) [09:36:29] To be fair, the definitions relate to what the terms mean on Wikidata (or what they might mean). They do not attempt to define Z6007, although that is supposed to represent a “snak”, whatever label it has. (re @lucaswerkmeister: I don’t understand the point of adding a known to be disputed term to the Glossary without even mentioning that it’s disputed) [09:59:17] Incidentally, there is a connection to this topic: [09:59:18] [[Wikifunctions:Project chat#Prevent changing built-in names]] [09:59:19] If a label has a definition in the Glossary “master” in language “en”, an orderly change to its value should be reflected in the Glossary. Alternatively, it is the stable identifier itself that gets defined ("Z6007" or "Z6003K2", for example). (re @Al: To be fair, the definitions relate to what the terms mean on Wikidata (or what they might mean). They do not attempt to [09:59:19] define Z...)