(not sure if I should make a new task for this), would it be possible to have a separate edit notice for edits that contain tracking parameters for AI-retrieved source links (like utm_source=chatgpt, ideally it's be locally configurable)? Currently on enwiki this is tracked by AbuseFilters 1030 and 1346, but honestly there's so many edits and there're enough innocuous instances that no-one patrols them (the filters are useful to search through if you already have a user suspected of LLM use). Re enwiki it obv isn't against any rules to use LLMs as search engines, but there's significant correlation between that and using LLMs to generate content, imo a notice that surfaced before publishing the edit which said something like "Hi, this was in your edit, it isn't against any rules, but please be aware of these rules" would be wonderful (maybe it could just be shown once). Happy to propose this onwiki if needed, thanks

WWT also doesn't appear to work for templates, such as infoboxes and tables

Is it possible to include Grammarly as well? It's a common one we see, and people are usually unaware it's LLM-powered and that it often goes beyond copyediting the text into introducing hallucinations/changing the meaning

This project's meant to be consensus-driven, why were these released given the feedback here (FWIW I'm personally indifferent about all of them other than the usertalk one)? If the answer's that the team working on it were effectively forced to by strong incentives to meet deadlines etc., that's an abject management/systemic failure.

Thank you @ppelberg and @DLynch !

You can also change the url to add ".wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org", so "academic.oup.com/whatever" becomes "academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/whatever"

Thank you all. Re Novem, tbh I did sort of naively have in mind some sort of bespoke fix since this issue is likely to crop up again sometime in the future with lengthy and important community discussions, but I recognise the time constraint is far too short here and I’ve no insight into the technical side of things

I am told transcluding won't solve issues to do with size

This looks amazing! Btw there's a list of each project's policies on AI https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence/Policies_by_project

Can the "not currently available" message at TWL please direct people to WP:RX?

not for me

Sidebars as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates)

Are we still waiting on someone at Oxford to check their inbox? Is there a Wikipedian in Residence we can set loose on them?

Works now, thanks

Now works for me also, thanks guys

Not for me, although edit count’s gone from ~-5000 to ~+500

Seconding this, lots that used to be accessible aren't anymore 1 2 3

It's working for most others, though there're some journal articles still not accessing. This can probably be closed

It works for me now too! I think it's been solved, thank you

Thanks, hopefully they’re more responsive than Oxford

My bad, discussion link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP_Library_and_problems_with_accessing_Cambridge_works

I have the same issue on my laptop, where I'm logged into the Wikipedia Library but some encyclopedia articles are locked. This has been the case for at least a few months. See https://oxfordre-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-69?rskey=9WyBYZ&result=1 and https://oxfordre-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-274?rskey=APXevk&result=1. It's frustrating because they look like really useful sources.

And https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Moderator_Tools

This is also being discussed https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Growth#c-KStoller-WMF-20240627182400-Alexanderkowal-20240609170800

So was flagged revs giving some users rights to mass revert back to a previous rev? I still don't think I get it lol. Apparently the German wikipedia uses proposed edits unilaterally for new editors, so you might be able to copy that and put it behind a checkbox? The edit history shenanigans may be more technically complex

@Aklapper

Hi, one of the things that inflame edit wars is the binary between published and unpublished. If someone makes an edit that they feel corrects a grave injustice and it is published, they have achieved their goal. If someone reverts that and makes it unpublished, they would receive it as regression and likely respond angrily. Encouraging the use of proposed edits for controversial edits means that that editor has to work with the reverter in order to achieve their goal of getting the edit published, and the process is one constant progression.

I have no idea what's going on, not at all tech literate sorry