From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|
The content will need rigorous source-checking where any references are new. Secondary issues are mainly aesthetic: Balance and condense any areas that go into excessive or intricate detail, adjust the tone in places to make it more approachable to popular-level readers, make it read less like it was written by a machine. [[User:Watchman21|Watchman21]] ([[User talk:Watchman21|talk]]) 21:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC) |
The content will need rigorous source-checking where any references are new. Secondary issues are mainly aesthetic: Balance and condense any areas that go into excessive or intricate detail, adjust the tone in places to make it more approachable to popular-level readers, make it read less like it was written by a machine. [[User:Watchman21|Watchman21]] ([[User talk:Watchman21|talk]]) 21:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
:I’ve re-written the lede, condensing key information it to around 300-400 words, and have already encounted what appears to be hallucinated content, such as ambiguated distinctions between verificationism and falsificationism. For those attempting to re-write the text, I think it’s reasonable to presume more hallucinated content will be found in the body of the article. [[User:Watchman21|Watchman21]] ([[User talk:Watchman21|talk]]) 06:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:04, 4 January 2026
|
||||||||||||
Most of the new content appears to have been generated over a 10-hour session on the 28th of November 2025. Because it seems to have used the existing content as a framework for further explanation, any potential for hallucinated content should hopefully be limited and what I’ve briefly examined of the content appears to be sound. WP:LLM has preliminary guidance on how this should be approached.
The content will need rigorous source-checking where any references are new. Secondary issues are mainly aesthetic: Balance and condense any areas that go into excessive or intricate detail, adjust the tone in places to make it more approachable to popular-level readers, make it read less like it was written by a machine. Watchman21 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve re-written the lede, condensing key information it to around 300-400 words, and have already encounted what appears to be hallucinated content, such as ambiguated distinctions between verificationism and falsificationism. For those attempting to re-write the text, I think it’s reasonable to presume more hallucinated content will be found in the body of the article. Watchman21 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

