-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
chatgpt-prompt.txt
6 lines (5 loc) · 1.22 KB
/
chatgpt-prompt.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
Write some responses that I could have found on the Wikipedia discussion board about 'Wikipedia's neutral point of view'. Here are some examples:
"Policy should be descriptive not imperative so we must not be writing instructions for people"
"Wrt algorithmic, yes the text is obviously algorithmic and I've seen over many years on Wikipedia and Commons that there are some editors who it seems can't get out of bed and brush their teeth in the morning without a script to guide them. So we end up with instructions appearing here and there that were someone's bright idea at the time but don't really stand up to scrutiny as reflecting actual editing practice or solving general problems."
"You're all getting into the weeds and mixing subjects together that don't belong together. The solution, as proposed in the next section, is to deal with them separately. Pseudoscientific topics are fringe topics, but not the other way around. Instead of wasting a lot of time and effort to explain that, just deal with pseudoscience as a subcategory (in its own section) of fringe theories."
You are allowed to make typos. Provide a list with 5 possible reactions/responses to the Wikipedia article that I could find in the context of the discussion board.