User talk:Ddccc

Hi

Welcome!

Hi Ddccc! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DS (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a signature on a talk page

Regarding this edit: you can sign your posts with 4 tildes thus ~~~~. See the Help tutorial (blue button) above. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia philosophy

"two unpaid, unvetted volunteers." "A purpose of life is: help other people." "A consequence of not being trained, vetted, and not accountable." "This is NOT normal." "Bizarre ... You admit being useless/ obnoxious/ authoritarian/ ...? Remember your purpose? Helping other people." "www.ontooo.com/AIAssessment2.pdf which I presented Feb 1 at ACDSA."

So, first off, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to help other people. It is to build an encyclopedia.. In particular there is an emphasis on a "widely accessible" and "free" encyclopedia; for example Britannica charges $75 a year. Now amazingly it turns out that by making the encyclopedia widely accessible and also allowing anyone to edit it, the coverage of Wikipedia has expanded greatly. For example Britannica doesn't even have an article on unification. Reliability was an issue but it has greatly improved by the introduction of a verifiability policy. These policies are content-neutral and based on the reputation and quality of sources. Certainly, vetting and paying for articles can improve quality, but it is at the expense of coverage.

Now as far as accountability, it is pretty easy: just make a post to the talk page that complains. There is a rule WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS that talk page comments are never edited or deleted, only archived (besides spam and other harmful content). So your complaint will be enshrined for as long as Wikipedia is around. That is also the way assertions on talk pages work: you can say whatever you want so long as it is not a personal attack or misrepresenting other people's contributions. (WP:TALKNO) Technically Wikipedia is not an anarchy but in practice there is a pillar ignore all rules which means a surprisingly wide range of behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia. The goal is still to build an encyclopedia, though, so although Wikipedia "feels" like an anarchy you will eventually get banned by an admin if you aren't making positive contributions.

"you not entitled to make that fuzzy assertion."

So a statement like that follows MOS:QUOTEPOV, it is used to present opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. In this case, having finally found a way to access the paper, it seems like there is support for it (Robinson is the fastest on size=1 unifiable pairs) but then in the conclusion it says "Our admittedly limited testing does not support their conclusion that small-sized arguments are best handled by the Robinson version" so I have revised the statement. (looking at this now I should have discussed it on the article page, oh well)

"As an unvetted volunteer you can not assume a 'WE' authority stance. You are entitled only to '>>I<< believe that XYZ'. Just consider the connection between authority and fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism"

I'll just use ChatGPT here, I can't make sense of this: https://chat.openai.com/share/a1a879ff-2065-4f35-979c-27dda97a158d

"Spend way, way to much time tracking down the perpetrator"

As I said, if it's too much time, there's the door. I would say ScholarPedia is probably a better place, you can write articles and get them peer-reviewed. I mean, you could try changing the way Wikipedia works, but the policies have been evolved and debated for years so you would be spending a lot more time doing that if you went that route.

"http://www.ontooo.com/AIAssessment2.pdf which I presented Feb 1 at ACDSA."

Technically, this is a conference paper, and it does appear in the online listings, but I don't think it counts as a secondary source. If you had a Wikipedia article then maybe I could use it to say you were interested in AI, otherwise there are just so many leaps of logic that I don't think I can use this as any sort of starting point. It is basically the Chinese room argument that AI does not have "a model of reality", but if you accept that then it is arguable that even humans do not have a true model of reality. Also you say ChatGPT is unreliable but then you take ChatGPT's assertions about itself as fact. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sister projects

Please see Wikibooks, where original research is welcomed, including new ideas which have not been widely accepted. Wikibooks comprises of a different set of volunteers, and a different objective, than Wikipedia. See also the following:

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects: