 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a term called "hallucinations" where the A.I. gets simple things that human could spot, wrong and a human has to correct it. People don't want to write anymore (in a loose general sense, I'm not talking about most people); they go to Chat GPT, enter what they want, then what would take them half an hour or hours to write, is cranked out in a second.
For those who don't know what it's capable of, let me give you a recent example: Last week I was listening to an interview with Mike Rowe (you may recall him as the host of the show "Dirty Jobs") where he mentioned that somebody made a video (or audio, sorry -- don't recall now) with Chat GPT and told it to create it voiced as Rowe in the style of "Dirty Jobs"; mere seconds later, an hour was cranked out and Mike said that if somebody hadn't told him it was fake, that he would assume it was something he did years ago and simply had forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bit about Steiner and Brahms seems to have been copied from IMDb in the Trivia section about Max Steiner. No indication of who submitted it. I see that Tim Demmie is a real person on Facebook with over 1,000 friends. Perhaps he's trying to be funny. I think it's all too easy nowadays to blame everything a bit odd as AI.
EDIT I see that the Steiner/Brahms connection is on this website:
https://musicbehindthescreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/max-steiner-pioneer.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I looked I thought it was about Al Newman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch! So the creator had a "source." But of course not everything on the Web (or in print) is true. Wikipedia, for example, demands printed sources. But when the source is, say, a studio promotional souvenir book about how many extras and how many fake beards in a crowd scene . . . Well, you see the problem.
Wikipedia doesn't require printed sources. In fact, there is quite a bit of information in Wikipedia that is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, really. But of course, there is a lot that's true, so some wrong things slip by on occasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch! So the creator had a "source." But of course not everything on the Web (or in print) is true. Wikipedia, for example, demands printed sources. But when the source is, say, a studio promotional souvenir book about how many extras and how many fake beards in a crowd scene . . . Well, you see the problem.
Wikipedia doesn't require printed sources. In fact, there is quite a bit of information in Wikipedia that is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, really. But of course, there is a lot that's true, so some wrong things slip by on occasion.
That's correct. I've submitted items on Wikipedia and never been asked for anything to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia doesn't require printed sources. In fact, there is quite a bit of information in Wikipedia that is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, really. But of course, there is a lot that's true, so some wrong things slip by on occasion.
There has been a time when wikipedia (de) asked for printed source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 8, 2025 - 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
Wikipedia doesn't require printed sources. In fact, there is quite a bit of information in Wikipedia that is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, really. But of course, there is a lot that's true, so some wrong things slip by on occasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a time when wikipedia (de) asked for printed source.
Wikipedia guidelines state that "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." Another way of putting this is that all material, if not verified, must at least be be verifiable.
All sources must be "published," which means any source that was made available to the public in some form. Wikipedia has a hierarchy as to which sources are of higher quality than others. For films, for example, the IMDB or a fan site for a performer is unacceptable as a reference; they can only be included in a list of external links.
When it comes to printed sources, preference is given to secondary sources rather than primary sources (i.e., those that require interpretation by the Wikipedia editor). For example, if one wants to discuss the implications of a study in an Wikipedia article, it can only be done if one cites an article that discusses those implications, rather than the study itself (which presents only the facts). This upholds the Wikipedia rule about including no original research, only research/interpretation that has been done by others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a page isn't locked (Wikipedia that is), you can hit the edit button, submit your change an in the line provided to explain your changes, explain why. They don't auto check it, so it many times goes unchallenged. Got to be something bigger or a some current famous person because you'll get checked or your change reverted.
People get off on making things up. I stumbled up, for example, one wiki-like page that listed several rejected scores by Elmer Bernstein, all to films that don't exist. And some of these non-existent films had non-existent sequels, too, which also had rejected scores. Some people may even believe their own crap; anybody remember Loren Alan Davis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia suffers from an awful problem with their moderators, specifically about a dozen of them which are real problems.
IMDb has been on/off. For a while there I was getting lucky and they were taking my submissions without question within minutes. It was good. Now I constantly run into problems.
They reject some submissions or parts of them, claim they were unable to verify the submission, but the problem is I provide links to videos and even time stamps in some cases, but they don't click on the links and auto reject -- they're fucking lazy bastards.
I can't even get incorrect information deleted. Some idiot (or maybe more than one idiot), for example, keeps submitting main credited composer credits to the Music Department, when that's the incorrect section and it's supposed to be under Composers. Additional music, theme music, stock music, etc., goes under the Music Department.
I submitted a pilot to IMDb last year that starred Wayne Knight. They took the entire cast, but rejected his credit, so now the star of the pilot is not on the IMDb page!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
