Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
The short answer is "no" but also a little "yes". The ethos of Codidact is that the individual communities determine themselves what is and is not appropriate for their communities (with some fair...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Lux
·
2023-06-04T14:37:08Z (over 1 year ago)
Minimal edits
The short answer is "No" but also a little "yes".- The ethos of Codidact is that the individual communities determine themselves what is and is not appropriate for their communities (with some fairly minimal network-wide policies). There may well be communities where ChatGPT produced content is welcome.
That said, I suspect most communities will not welcome such content. To that end, having a *model* policy that individual communities could adapt to their communities makes sense. In other words, each community would have its own policy (including no policy), but each community wouldn't need to *develop* its own policy and, as a result, the policy across communities would be more uniform.In this vein, another valuable activity at the network level would be centralizing resources on identifying ChatGPT produced content. This could be a page that references tools with some evaluation of the effectiveness and which are used in other communities. Additionally the page may include guidance on how to use these tools efficiently in a moderation workflow or get the most use out of them.
- The short answer is "no" but also a little "yes".
- The ethos of Codidact is that the individual communities determine themselves what is and is not appropriate for their communities (with some fairly minimal network-wide policies). There may well be communities where ChatGPT produced content is welcome.
- That said, I suspect most communities will not welcome such content. To that end, having a *model* policy that individual communities could adapt to their communities makes sense. In other words, each community would have its own policy (including no policy), but each community wouldn't need to *develop* its policy, and, as a result, the policy across communities would be more uniform.
- In this vein, another valuable activity at the network level would be centralizing resources on identifying ChatGPT produced content. This could be a page that references tools with some evaluation of their effectiveness and which are used in other communities. Additionally, the page may include guidance on how to use these tools efficiently in a moderation workflow or get the most use out of them.
#1: Initial revision
by
Derek Elkins
·
2023-02-15T23:02:09Z (almost 2 years ago)
The short answer is "No" but also a little "yes". The ethos of Codidact is that the individual communities determine themselves what is and is not appropriate for their communities (with some fairly minimal network-wide policies). There may well be communities where ChatGPT produced content is welcome. That said, I suspect most communities will not welcome such content. To that end, having a *model* policy that individual communities could adapt to their communities makes sense. In other words, each community would have its own policy (including no policy), but each community wouldn't need to *develop* its own policy and, as a result, the policy across communities would be more uniform. In this vein, another valuable activity at the network level would be centralizing resources on identifying ChatGPT produced content. This could be a page that references tools with some evaluation of the effectiveness and which are used in other communities. Additionally the page may include guidance on how to use these tools efficiently in a moderation workflow or get the most use out of them.