Timeline for Proposed changes to Help Center articles to include mention of AI-generated content policy
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16 at 14:57 | comment | added | JNat StaffMod | For the parts of your answer marked as [status-planned] as of the answer's third revision: we plan to work on these, but feel these changes aren't necessarily blockers for the other proposed changes, so we'll be working on them after rolling out the other changes currently proposed in revision 13 of the question. | |
| Feb 16 at 14:56 | history | edited | JNatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Feb 15 at 2:00 | comment | added | Karsten | @JNat The current example does not seem to follow two items in the standard, "Provide the name of the original author", and "This ensures that the original creator gets credit for their work." I don't know who wrote the page, and so the original creator does not get credit for their work. Giving a link to a page is always a problem because 10 years later, the URL might be gone or the content might have changed. If you link to a Wikipedia article (like for the definition of plagiarism), the page is very likely to be different after 10 years, unless you link to a specific version of the article. | |
| Feb 14 at 15:06 | history | edited | JNatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 92 characters in body
|
| Feb 14 at 15:02 | comment | added | JNat StaffMod | I'm confused about what the issue with the example in the referencing article is. The example quotes from a page; the help center links to the page where it quotes from. The fact that that page doesn't mention who wrote that text, and that it has links we would normally not accept as direct references as per our standards seems secondary — the fact remains that the relevant piece of quoted text is properly referenced as per our standards. If we wanna change the example to one without the redirects/dead links, and with a clearer author, we can; but the current example is as per standard, no? | |
| Feb 9 at 5:28 | comment | added | Karsten | @Nij There is some irony in that, I agree. | |
| Feb 9 at 4:36 | comment | added | Nij | Rather than use an example of academic dishonesty to point out an academic dishonesty-related jargon issue, you could use something other than Watson and Crick. | |
| Feb 8 at 21:00 | history | answered | Karsten | CC BY-SA 4.0 |