9 April 2025 Special report: Wikipedian and physician Ziyad al-Sufiani reportedly released from Saudi prison In focus: WMF to explore "common standards" for NPOV policies; implications for project autonomy remain unclear In the media: Indian judges demand removal of content critical of Asian News International News and notes: 35,000 user accounts compromised, locked in attempted credential-stuffing attack Op-ed: How crawlers impact the operations of the Wikimedia projects Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PawełMM Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go... News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view Comix: Thirteen Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

You detected AI slop in the article Ringwood East. What gave it away? I ask so that I might be able to improve my ability to detect AI text. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in the reference links is a clear giveaway. Nobody (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what puts that into the source url? I just checked, and the richardriordan.com source exists and is from 2022. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

utm_source is a tracking parameter that shows from which website you got the link. Many websites use them as it is just free data they can sell. In this case, it shows that the link to the target website was generated by ChatGPT. Edit: Fun fact: This search shows that over 1100 articles currently have links generated using ChatGPT on them. Nobody (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Question: if someone used ChatGpt to search for info on a topic, then used the websites ChatGpt had found as some of the references while creating an article from a range of sources and in their own words, could this create a false positive for this detection if they used the URL without noticing that it had that "utm_source" element to it? Imagining a scenario where someone finds a range of sources, some via ChatGpt, and keeps them open in a set of tabs while writing the article. (No, I don't use ChatGPT myself, just curious) I suppose it could act as a flag: "Check this article carefully, as the editor has used GPT for some purpose while creating it". So some at least of your 1100 may be conscientious editors writing an article properly after asking ChatGPT to suggest sources. PamD 07:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All this says is that someone used a source given or found by ChatGPT, everything else is just speculation/interpretation. Most of the time it's no problem and even if there is one, with a little good faith it's easily dealt with. But especially newer user don't always know our stance on LLM-generated content and attempt to add it. This url paramter can be a indication of that. Nobody (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive, 1AmNobody24, and PamD: See WP:UPSD#AI-generated (and WP:RSN#WP:UPSD Update). For @Abductive:, see also lines 147-152. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb could something like AskPandi also be added to it? Current uses. Nobody (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just made my first ever edit to Wikipedia (woo-hoo) on the english page about Christian Drosten - however the original edit I wanted to make was to fix the addendum to reference 12, which uses your template I think?

I'm a little overwhelmed by the onslaught of information and things to read up on, so I was wondering if you could maybe give me a quick rundown of the steps you would take to update the addendum to reflect the latest update on the matter (which is, the investigation came to the conclusion to not redact) - I didn't feel confident to just edit the automatically generated parameters of the template, but also didn't really know if I should just remove the template entry, and instead write a manual addendum linking to retractionwatch and then the resolution..? So many questions :D

Would really appreciate your time! :)

Maerlinned (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're asking. What exactly is to fix? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb, how can you confirm that this link is from a predatory source?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by Beall as predatory and advertises truly trivial services as 'indexing', including some that provide fake impact factors. So yeah, that's a predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I see where Jeffrey Beall listed it?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://beallslist.net/ Looks for Scholars Middle East Publishers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the Scripts section for the May NPP drive. I hope to see you reviewing articles during the drive; your help would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAlertBot's task "Updating article alerts" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 10 were expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the {{/task}} template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]