User talk:Headbomb#Drop this claim of bad faith now please

You detected [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ringwood_East&diff=1284658908&oldid=1284533358 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)

:{{tpw}} The ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in the reference links is a clear giveaway. Nobody (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%3Futm%5C_source%5C%3Dchatgpt%5C.com%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 This search] shows that over 1100 articles currently have links generated using ChatGPT on them. Nobody (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tpw}} 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)

:::::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)

::::::{{ping|Abductive|1AmNobody24|PamD}} See WP:UPSD#AI-generated (and WP:RSN#WP:UPSD Update). For {{ping|Abductive}}, see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Headbomb/unreliable.js&oldid=1284839748#L-147 lines 147-152]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Headbomb could something like [https://askpandi.com/ AskPandi] also be added to it? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2Futm%5C_source%5C%3Daskpandi%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Current uses]. Nobody (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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 [https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041 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)

: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)

::Hi sorry for the delayed response - in the above article, reference 12 includes the following addendum: "(This paper currently has an expression of concern, see doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.48.2012031, PMID [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33272356 33272356],  [http://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/07/public-health-journal-seeking-further-expert-advice-on-january-paper-about-covid-19-pcr-testing-by-high-profile-virologist/ Retraction Watch])" - this isn't true anymore, the investigation was concluded and the publication wasn't redacted after all. I wanted to update that addendum, and saw that it has been added here using a template where I found you and @HouseBlaster in the edit history, as well as a discussion around the automatic addition of this template. It's all a bit confusing, so I was wondering if you could advise me on how to go about this. Maerlinned (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the expression of concern concluded and nothing changed in the article, then all you have to do is add {{para|intentional|yes}} to {{tl|expression of concern}}. You could also removed the EoC entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, how can you confirm that [https://saudijournals.com/media/articles/SJHSS-45-361-365-cc-1.pdf this link] is from a predatory source?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Listed by Beall as predatory and [https://saudijournals.com/journal/sjhss/indexing 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)

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

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

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

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)