User talk:Rosslh

AI tools

I would strongly suggest that you secure agreement from the Wikipedia community (the Wikipedia:Village pump would be a good place) before testing AI-based editing tools on the encyclopedia. Employing AI on this site is still highly controversial. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, thanks for reaching out! I intend to start a discussion once I have a tool ready for the community to test (i.e., with a user interface and a limited user whitelist). In the meantime, I will only use the tool myself in accordance with Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines. I'm curious with what changes you took issue with in Disco and Business process modeling? I reviewed the edits carefully but maybe there was an issue you noticed that slipped by me. I would appreciate feedback so I can refine the editing tool further and also improve my manual review process. Thank you! rosslh (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that swapped text out for less formal or incorrect grammar, and the ones that introduced bugs where templates were encountered. You should not be live testing this kind of thing in articles. MrOllie (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of three issues introduced by my edits: a removed template in disco (restored by me), an invalid link introduced in disco (fixed by another editor), and a nowiki tag introduced in business process modelling. The former two issues have been fixed in the program and will not happen again. The latter was because I pasted the new article content into the visual editor - I will avoid doing so in the future.

Rest assured, I have tested this program dozens of times without saving the result to Wikipedia. The edits I have made are not tests, but genuine and largely successful attempts to improve the quality of these articles.

I am curious about the informal language and grammar issues you mention. Less formal language isn't necessarily a bad thing (the article is tagged with "This article may be too technical for most readers"), but a specific example would provide clarity here. Thanks again! rosslh (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer to avoid giving specific examples in situations like these, where the problem was endemic throughout the edit. Far too often I see only the single example get addressed. MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MrOllie, after our conversation, I spent some time reflecting and reading through past community discussions on the use of LLMs. You're totally right - I should have brought this up at the Village Pump before using the tool to help copyedit articles. People are rightfully concerned about the adoption of new tech like LLMs on Wikipedia, and getting input from the community is a prudent first step. I have since stopped using the tool and am putting together a post for the Village Pump. I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction! rosslh (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]