Comment by bluebarbet
20 days ago
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
20 days ago
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
Why shouldn't it be relevant?
The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI.
The post also reads like it was partially written with AI.
I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove.
Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned.
The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.
I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I just don't understand the evidence you're putting forward to support your claim.
Have you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor ever used AI to revise articles? What was your experience?
Telling a story about editing an article once and thinking that AI could do it isn't as compelling.
Establishing ethos isn't the same thing as an appeal to authority.