This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
@Asilvering: Thank you for reviewing my article submission. In your review you indicated that the article was declined due to it being generated by ChatGPT. I would like to indicate that this was not the case. The only place where it was used was to reformulate the criticisms and critiques of positive psychology section and his research interests to remove the implied promotional tone highlighted by the first review. However, the changes on these sentences were less than 15%. If you run the content of the article through ZeroGPT or any other GPT detector, you will notice that no content was AI generated. I have, however, changed the content and removed the reformulated sentences for clarity and to avoid confusion. Thank you again for your willingness to review my article and for the feedback you provided. This is my first attempt at writing these types of articles and I hope to make more contributions in respect of my specialisation area in the future So any additional feedback would be welcomed. EddyBrockVenom (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EddyBrockVenom, unfortunately the problem with ChatGPT from wikipedia's perspective isn't so much that it's AI-generated content per se. We don't really care all that much whether GPTZero thinks the output looks like AI output. The problem is twofold: one, AI simply makes things up, and two, AI isn't any good at writing encyclopedia articles. If you are completely 100% sure that none of this is made up, that's great, but unfortunately you've still got the second problem. Some advice for your next steps there: first, if it looks like something you'd find on a resume or on linkedin, remove it. Next, go through and remove stuff that isn't super important and has no secondary source. (Example: it says he was the top student in his honours program. I'm twitching with second-hand embarrassment just writing that out. Remove!) Then, go through it again with the understanding that you may be the last person ever in the world to significantly edit this article. Ten years from now, will this be useful? What about thirty years? If this article existed in precisely the state it is now in ten years, do you think the subject would be happy about that? Keep in mind that this is a living person with an ongoing career, and you're presently their biographer - you have a lot of power here to cause embarrassment or harm, even by simple inaction, through no intent of your own. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
