TheTechnician27
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
- Submitted 19 hours ago to [deleted] | 0 comments
- Comment on Call me... 3 days ago:
Funnily enough, that Unidan copypasta is 100% correct. I don’t know why, for as long-winded as it is, though, he doesn’t use use more taxonomic names to make it precise: jackdaws are in genus Coloeus, and crows and ravens are in genus Corvus, both under family Corvidae. The apes are the primate superfamily Hominoidea, which Homo sapiens sits under. There, Unidan; that’s all you had to say.
- Submitted 3 days ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 9 comments
- Comment on Call me... 3 days ago:
For those who might be confused, “daddy longlegs” colloquially refers to two totally separate things. Spiders are of the order Araneae under class Arachnida (they’re arachnids; go figure).
“Daddy longlegs” often refers to cellar spiders, the family Pholcidae within the spiders. However, “daddy longlegs” also refers to another order of arachnids altogether called Opiliones, also known as harvestmen. So if this doesn’t look like the daddy longlegs you know, that’s why; they’re not a “different type” of the cellar spider you’re familiar with.
- Comment on Good for plants 6 days ago:
I only give my plants real country music.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
(At a glance, this article needs some touching up and hasn’t been meaningfully contributed to in some years.)
- Comment on sentence 1 week ago:
- Successful murder does more actual harm, and thus if you weigh not just intent but actual harm, you get a more severe punishment (think, for example, of felony murder, where the perpetrators don’t necessarily intend to kill anyone but someone does die as a result of them committing a felony).
- Treating murder more harshly than attempted murder gives someone attempting murder a practical incentive not to follow through.
- Submitted 1 week ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 10 comments
- Comment on In SpongeBob, Sandy Cheeks is way more closely related to Pearl and the fish than she is to anyone else in the main cast 1 week ago:
- A bee is more closely related to a hermit crab than it is to a spider (arthropod subphylum Crustacea). A spider is more closely related to a horseshoe crab than it is to a bee (arthropod subphylum Chelicerata).
- A deer is more closely related to a killer whale (order Artiodactyla) than it is to a human (order Primates).
- Comment on In SpongeBob, Sandy Cheeks is way more closely related to Pearl and the fish than she is to anyone else in the main cast 1 week ago:
I did think of it and visualize this image in the shower, for what it’s worth. The gorgeous illustration™ and written explanation are there because 99% of people are sane and therefore have no idea what the fuck any of this means.
- Comment on In SpongeBob, Sandy Cheeks is way more closely related to Pearl and the fish than she is to anyone else in the main cast 1 week ago:
He’s probably the reason I have any interest in marine biology.
- Comment on In SpongeBob, Sandy Cheeks is way more closely related to Pearl and the fish than she is to anyone else in the main cast 1 week ago:
What do you mean? I remembered there were humans in this show. See, just look at the image! I didn’t think of the narrator and the pirate portrait and then give up.
- Comment on In SpongeBob, Sandy Cheeks is way more closely related to Pearl and the fish than she is to anyone else in the main cast 1 week ago:
Yup! You’ll be happy to know, though, that amphibians (class Amphibia), mammals (class Mammalia), birds (class Avia), and reptiles (class Reptilia) all have their own pigeonholes.
What you won’t be happy to know is that a lot of things that are called “shrimp” aren’t actually shrimp. Shrimp are specifically the decapod infraorder Caridea. Anything else – presented in order of decreasing relatedness – like prawns (decapod suborder Dendrobranchiata), amphipods (order Amphipoda), or mantis shrimp (order Stomatopoda) are not shrimp.
- Submitted 1 week ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 20 comments
- Comment on You don't know me! 2 weeks ago:
If you put it under a compatible license (CC BY-SA or less restrictive), we on Wikipedia also pull from iNaturalist for images to add to Wikimedia Commons. It helps a surprising amount.
- Comment on Bird ban 2 weeks ago:
Fair point. Bird law in this country is not governed by reason.
- Comment on Bird ban 2 weeks ago:
While feeding a bird by encasing it in food may seem ethical at first blush, the reality is that bread is junk food for birds – providing energy but minimal nutritional value. Hence this user was kicked from the group.
- Comment on Political Views 2 weeks ago:
I do have to. Doing otherwise robs you of a chance to someday gradually expose yourself to and appreciate these creatures. Or it at least needlessly ruins someone’s mood.
- Comment on Political Views 2 weeks ago:
Pseudoscorpions are absolute little goofs, I agree. I’m not sure if that offsets how weird and creepy they are. It’s like I’m giggling and profoundly worried I’m seeing an alien at the same time.
- Comment on Political Views 2 weeks ago:
“Think of it less like a hierarchy and more like a web.”
- Comment on Political Views 2 weeks ago:
Be thankful they chose Aranae instead of other arachnid orders.
don't open; tailless whip-scorpion inside
- Comment on Meet the AI vegans: They are choosing to abstain from using artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons. Maybe they have a point 3 weeks ago:
You’re hereby invited to /c/vegan, as you appear to be a Northern Hemisphere vegan.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
The short answer is that I really, really suggest you try other things before trying to create your first article. This isn’t just me; every experienced editor will tell you that creating a new article is one of the hardest things any editor can do, let alone a newer one. It’s why the task center lists it as being appropriate for “advanced editors”. Finding an existing article which interests you and then polishing and expanding it is almost always more rewarding, more useful, easier, and less stressful than creating an article from scratch. And if creating articles sounds appealing, expanding existing stub articles is great experience for that.
The long answer is “you can”, but it’s really hard:
- New editors are subject to Articles for Creation, or AfC, when creating an article. The article sits in a draft state until the editor flags it for review. The backlog is very long, and while reviewers can go in any order they want, they usually prioritize the oldest articles out of fairness and because most AfC submissions are about equal in urgency and time consumption. “Months” is the expected waiting time.
- If you’re not using the English Wikipedia, you can try translating over a well-established article from English. There’s no rule that says sources have to be in the language of the Wikipedia they’re on, although it’s still considered a big plus if sources are in the same language.
- Wikipedia’s notability guidelines are predicated on you understanding other policies and guidelines like “reliable sources” and “independent sources”. They’re also intentionally fuzzy so people don’t play lawyer and follow the exact letter without considering the spirit of the guideline.
- The English Wikipedia currently has over 7 million articles. There are still a lot of missing articles (mostly in taxonomy, where notability is almost guaranteed), but you really need to know where to look.
- When choosing an article subject, it’s extremely important to avoid COI.
- Assuming you have a subject you think meets criteria, now you have to go out and find reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject to confirm your hypothesis.
- Now you need to start the article, and you need to do this in a manner which:
- Is verifiable (all claims are cited)
- Is not original research (i.e. nothing you say can be based on “because I know it”)
- Is reliable (all citations are to reliable sources)
- Is neutral (you’ve minimized bias as much as you can, let the sources speak for themselves, and made sure your source selection isn’t biased)
- Is stylistically correct (there’s a manual of style, but just use your best judgment, and small mistakes can be copy-edited out by people familiar with style guidelines)
- If the article is nominated for deletion, you have to keep your cool and argue based solely on guidelines (not on perceived importance of the subject) that the article should be kept.
- New articles are almost always given more scrutiny than articles which have been around; this isn’t a cultural problem as much as it is a heuristic one.
- An article deleted feels much more personal than edits reverted (despite the fact that subject notability is 100% out of your control).
Some of these apply to normal editing too, but working within an article others have worked on and might be willing to help with is vastly easier than building one from scratch. If you want specific help in picking out, say, an article to try editing and are on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem acting like bowling bumpers if you’re afraid your edits won’t meet standards.
- Comment on We are mainstream now🔥 3 weeks ago:
I really wanted to give Lemmy a try, but I’ll be returning to the whiteboard in my office for organic, sophisticated discussion.
- Comment on It's 2025, the year we decided we need a widespread slur for robots 3 weeks ago:
Ratchet: “I’ll just call you… ***** for short.”
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
I’m going to write this from the perspective of the English Wikipedia, but most specifics should have some analog in other Wikipedias. By “contribute to new articles”, do you mean create new articles, contribute to articles which are new that you come across, or contribute to articles which you haven’t before (thus “new to you”)? Asking because the first one has a very different – much more complicated – answer from the other two.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
Is it possible that this is an effort to steal work from Wikipedia editors to get you to train their AI models?
I can’t definitively say “no”, but I’ve seen no evidence of this at all.
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations 3 weeks ago:
So Wikipedia has three methods for deleting an article:
- Proposed deletion (PROD): An editor tags an article explaining why they think it should be uncontroversially deleted. After seven days, an administrator will take a look and decide if they agree. Proposed deletion of an article can only be done once, even this can be removed by anyone passing by who disagrees with it, and an article deleted via PROD can be recreated at any time.
- Articles for deletion (AfD): A discussion is held to delete an article. Pretty much always, this is about the subject’s notability. After the discussion (a week by default), a closer (almost always an administrator, especially for contentious discussions) will evaluate the merits of the arguments made and see if a consensus has been reached to e.g. delete, keep, redirect, or merge. Articles deleted via discussion cannot be recreated until they’ve satisfied the concerns of said discussion, else they can be summarily re-deleted.
- Speedy deletion: An article is so fundamentally flawed that it should be summarily deleted at best or needs to be deleted as soon as possible at worst. The nominating editor will choose one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), and an administrator will delete the article if they agree. Like a PROD, articles deleted this way can be recreated at any time.
This new criterion has nothing to do with preempting the kind of trust building you described. The editor who made it will not be treated any differently than before. It’s there so editors don’t have to deal with the bullshit asymmetry principle and comb through everything to make sure it’s verifiable. Sometimes editors will make these LLM-generated articles because they think they’re helping but don’t know how to do it themselves, sometimes it’s for some bizarre agenda (e.g. there’s a sockpuppet editor who’s been occasionally popping up trying to push articles generated by an LLM about the Afghan–Mughal Wars), but whatever the reason, it just does nothing but waste other editors’ time and can be effectively considered unverified. All this criterion does is expedite the process of purging their bullshit.
I’d argue meticulously building trust to push an agenda isn’t a prevalent problem on Wikipedia, but that’s a very different discussion.
