User talk:Pupfern
Response to your decision regarding my contributions
I want to clarify several points regarding the decision to remove my contributions.
Using artificial intelligence for validation and writing is not an error; it is a tool.
In producing articles, I used AI to cross‑check sources, compare data against reputable medical and pharmacological databases, identify inconsistencies, and standardise citation formats. Given the sheer volume of data and diversity of sources in fields such as pharmacology, physiology, and law, manually verifying every single claim is time‑consuming and prone to human error. AI can process thousands of articles and sources in seconds, flag contradictions, and highlight which claims need human review. In this method, the final decision and confirmation of accuracy still rest with a human; AI simply increases speed and precision.
Therefore, the problem is not the use of AI, but rather the absence of a defined review process before publication. If RACKWiki had such a process from the start, any potential errors would have been caught and corrected at that stage.
Regarding “several factual errors”
I ask you to specify exactly which articles and which sections contained errors. I do not intend to defend my mistakes, but I need concrete evidence to correct them. A general claim of “several factual errors” without specific examples helps neither me nor the improvement of the wiki.
Incident report pages
What I created were proposed templates and sample structures, not binding policies. If the team wishes to maintain full control over this section, I completely respect that; however, removing all contributions wholesale due to a misunderstanding seems disproportionate.
My proposal for the future
Instead of blanket removal, we could establish a content review committee. Future contributions by me and other users could be reviewed through a transparent process. I can also help draft an official AI policy one that, rather than prohibiting the technology, defines its responsible use alongside human oversight. We all share the same goal providing the most accurate information to reduce harm in the community. I hope that through dialogue, we can reach a solution that preserves the wiki’s credibility while making the best use of technological tools. Farid (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2026 (PDT)
I want to clarify several points regarding the decision to remove my contributions.
Using artificial intelligence for validation and writing is not an error; it is a tool.
In producing articles, I used AI to cross‑check sources, compare data against reputable medical and pharmacological databases, identify inconsistencies, and standardise citation formats. Given the sheer volume of data and diversity of sources in fields such as pharmacology, physiology, and law, manually verifying every single claim is time‑consuming and prone to human error. AI can process thousands of articles and sources in seconds, flag contradictions, and highlight which claims need human review. In this method, the final decision and confirmation of accuracy still rest with a human; AI simply increases speed and precision.
Therefore, the problem is not the use of AI, but rather the absence of a defined review process before publication. If RACKWiki had such a process from the start, any potential errors would have been caught and corrected at that stage.
Regarding “several factual errors”
I ask you to specify exactly which articles and which sections contained errors. I do not intend to defend my mistakes, but I need concrete evidence to correct them. A general claim of “several factual errors” without specific examples helps neither me nor the improvement of the wiki.
Incident report pages
What I created were proposed templates and sample structures, not binding policies. If the team wishes to maintain full control over this section, I completely respect that; however, removing all contributions wholesale due to a misunderstanding seems disproportionate.
My proposal for the future
Instead of blanket removal, we could establish a content review committee. Future contributions by me and other users could be reviewed through a transparent process. I can also help draft an official AI policy one that, rather than prohibiting the technology, defines its responsible use alongside human oversight. We all share the same goal providing the most accurate information to reduce harm in the community. I hope that through dialogue, we can reach a solution that preserves the wiki’s credibility while making the best use of technological tools. Farid (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2026 (PDT)