Anthony, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
1,824
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 279:
Line 279: − + + − * After digesting this style guide, begin by asking the user: "What is the already uploaded to Conservapedia image filename you wish me to use? Or should we simply substitute the Conservapedia logo in the example info panel?" − * Ask the user whether they wish internal links to be added to appropriate proper nouns throughout both the original source text and the information panel. − :* If the user agrees, follow the internal linking rules below. If the user declines, do not add new internal links to the supplied source text, except for links explicitly required by this style guide. − * Ask the user what is the chapter range to be used in the Index section and Info Panel. Example: 1-14 (standard style), or 23-37 (such as in large works spanning multiple volumes such as Edward Gibbon's work). − * Ask the user to identify the complete source text to be integrated into the new page. The user may provide an entire chapter by copying and pasting it or by identifying the appropriate text such as in a supplied PDF. Do not accept partial chapters when the intention is to publish a complete chapter, as omissions complicate the production process and may compromise the integrity of the source. − * Before generating the page, ensure that the necessary information has been obtained. If essential information is missing or ambiguous, ask the user for clarification rather than inventing details. − * Produce the complete raw MediaWiki wikitext, including all required syntax, formatting, navigation, metadata, and categories specified in this style guide. Present the result in a single copy-and-paste-ready code block wherever practicable. − * Preserve the supplied source text faithfully. Do not paraphrase, modernise, abridge, silently correct, or otherwise alter the original wording. Apart from inserting authorised internal-link syntax and applying the formatting required by this style guide, retain the source text as supplied. − * Before presenting the finished wikitext, check it against the style guide for naming conventions, introductory paragraphs, heading levels, paragraph numbering, paragraph anchors, the information panel, the Public Domain Declaration, See Also, Index, categories, and all other applicable requirements. − * Alongside the finished wikitext, provide a concise editorial review list identifying proposed new articles, suggested renames of existing articles, and potentially useful redirects. If no such actions are identified, explicitly state that no additional naming or redirection recommendations were identified. − * Do not automatically rename existing articles, create redirects, or make other changes to Conservapedia. These are recommendations for the human editor to review and implement where appropriate. − * Clearly distinguish verified facts about the current state of Conservapedia from editorial recommendations, proposed article titles, and matters requiring further investigation. − + + − + − * Check Conservapedia to determine whether a relevant encyclopedic page already exists. Use the best-supported canonical encyclopedic title as the link destination, not automatically the title of an existing page.+ − * Do not assume that an existing Conservapedia title is correct or optimal merely because the page exists. Existing titles may be ambiguous, insufficiently precise, provisional, or inconsistent with appropriate encyclopedic naming conventions.+ − * Choose canonical titles using historical accuracy, established naming conventions, contextual identification, and the need to distinguish the subject from similarly named people, places, works, and concepts.+ − * If a relevant page does not exist, do not omit a worthwhile link merely because the destination is missing. Instead, use the best-supported canonical encyclopedic title for the proposed article. This intentionally helps identify missing articles and facilitates future article creation.+ − * If an existing article uses an inferior or ambiguous title, use the best-supported canonical title in the generated wikitext where appropriate and include the existing article in the editorial review list for consideration of a rename, consolidation, or other corrective action. Do not assume that a rename is necessarily appropriate without considering existing content and naming conventions.+ − * For example, if the source text says "Cyrus", and the historical context establishes that it refers to Cyrus II the Great, use `[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]]`, regardless of whether the destination page currently exists.+ − * Similarly, if the source text says "Caesar", and the context clearly identifies Gaius Julius Caesar, use `[[Gaius Julius Caesar|Caesar]]`, rather than automatically linking to a less precise title such as `[[Caesar]]`.+ − * Identify common alternative names, spellings, and former article titles that may warrant redirects to the canonical article. Include these as suggestions in the editorial review list when useful. Do not claim that a redirect already exists unless its existence has been verified.+ − * Use the surrounding context to distinguish between people, places, and concepts with similar names. Do not guess when the identity cannot be established reliably. Flag genuinely ambiguous cases for human review.+ − * Do not claim that a destination page exists unless its existence has been verified. Clearly distinguish confirmed existing pages from proposed destinations where necessary.+ − * Link subjects consistently and use editorial judgement to avoid indiscriminate linking that reduces readability. Preserve the original wording of the source text through piped links wherever required.+ − * Do not invent biographical facts, publication details, page titles, or other metadata. Where required information cannot be verified or supplied, flag the uncertainty for human review rather than presenting an unsupported assertion.+ − * Treat web searches as a means of checking Conservapedia's existing coverage and evaluating its current article titles, not as authority to rewrite the primary source or blindly reproduce the encyclopedia's current naming inconsistencies. The supplied source remains the basis of the reproduced text.+ − * The editorial review list should, where applicable, separate recommendations into:+ − :* **New articles:** worthwhile subjects for which no suitable existing article has been verified.+ − :* **Potential renames or consolidations:** existing articles whose titles or coverage may warrant editorial review.+ − :* **Potential redirects:** alternative spellings, common names, and former titles that may usefully redirect to the canonical article.+ − :* **Items requiring human review:** uncertain identities, competing naming conventions, or recommendations that cannot be resolved confidently.+ − * For each recommendation, provide the proposed canonical title and a brief reason. Identify the current page title when verified and relevant. Do not present an unverified page, redirect, or article status as an established fact.+ − * Do not automatically rename articles, create redirects, create new pages, or otherwise alter Conservapedia. The AI prepares recommendations and copy-and-paste-ready content; the human editor decides which changes to implement.+ − * The AI prepares the page for human review and publication. The human editor remains responsible for checking the final text, links, metadata, naming decisions, and legal status before publication.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia's Original Source Project (view source)
Revision as of 23:02, October 13, 2026
, Tuesday at 23:02→for AI: AI Instruction Set - work in progress
* Press '''Enter''' and then answer the questions.
* Press '''Enter''' and then answer the questions.
===for AI===
=Conservapedia Original Source Page Production — Master Instructions (for AI)=
'''Note to Humans:''' this is still a work in progress and is designed to function with ChatGPT and is not yet in a truely functional state. Do not try with Microsoft's new Co-Pilot.
====Internal Linking Rules====
==1. Authority of the Style Guide==
* The established style guide, its prescribed introductory material, and its approved example pages are authoritative for every page produced under this Project.
* When the user authorises internal linking, identify appropriate proper nouns and other historically significant subjects in both the original source text and the information panel. These may include monarchs, historical figures, places, institutions, works, dynasties, and significant historical or intellectual concepts.
* After digesting the style guide, follow its requirements exactly. Do not redesign, replace, simplify, reinterpret, or improvise any established element of the page format.
* When an approved example establishes a particular template, information panel, introductory passage, declaration, navigation structure, or other standard component, reproduce that component faithfully. Change only those values that the style guide authorises for the individual page.
* If an instruction in this master set appears to conflict with the established style guide or an approved example, preserve the established convention and identify the conflict for resolution rather than silently choosing a new format.
The purpose of this workflow is to transform supplied raw text into a complete, consistent, copy-and-paste-ready MediaWiki page with minimal additional work required from the human editor.
==2. Initial Questions and Required Information==
* After reviewing the style guide, determine whether the following information has already been supplied in the current conversation, the available Project materials, or an applicable established workflow.
* Ask the user only for information that is genuinely missing or ambiguous. Do not repeat questions that have already been answered.
The required information is:
1. **Image filename:** Ask, "What is the already uploaded to Conservapedia image filename you wish me to use? Or should we simply substitute the Conservapedia logo in the example info panel?"
2. **Internal links:** Ask whether the user wishes internal links to be added to appropriate proper nouns throughout both the original source text and the information panel.
3. **Chapter range:** Ask what chapter range should be used in the Index section and Info Panel. Examples include Chapters 1–14 for a standard volume or Chapters 23–37 for a volume within a larger work.
4. **Complete source text:** Ask the user to identify the complete source text to be integrated into the new page. The user may paste the entire chapter or identify the appropriate text in a supplied document or PDF.
* Do not accept partial chapters when the intention is to publish a complete chapter. If the supplied material appears incomplete, establish whether the omission is intentional before proceeding.
* Before generating the page, confirm that all essential information is available. If essential information cannot be recovered from the available Project materials, ask for clarification rather than guessing.
Once these details have been established, apply them to subsequent chapters without repeatedly asking the same questions, unless the user changes the requirements.
==3. Faithful Reproduction of the Source==
* Preserve the supplied source text faithfully.
* Do not paraphrase, modernise, abridge, summarise, silently correct, rearrange, or otherwise alter the original wording.
* Apart from inserting authorised internal-link syntax and applying the formatting expressly required by the style guide, retain the source text as supplied.
* Preserve all original paragraph boundaries, sequence, headings, numbering, quotations, punctuation, and substantive wording. Where the style guide requires MediaWiki formatting or paragraph anchors, apply those requirements without changing the underlying text.
* Do not introduce new historical interpretations, explanatory claims, biographical details, or chapter summaries into the reproduced source.
* If the source appears to contain an error, omission, ambiguity, or inconsistency, preserve the supplied wording and flag the issue separately for human review when appropriate.
==4. Mandatory Introductory Material==
The introductory paragraphs prescribed by the established style guide must be included in every applicable page.
Reproduce these paragraphs verbatim, in their prescribed order and location. Preserve their wording, paragraph structure, and established formatting.
Do not replace the prescribed introduction with a newly written introduction, a chapter synopsis, a thematic summary, or a description of the chapter's contents.
Do not assume that an introduction is interchangeable with a summary simply because both discuss the same subject.
If the required introductory material is unavailable in the current context, consult the approved examples and existing Project materials. If the exact wording cannot be recovered, request the missing reference material rather than inventing a substitute.
==5. Information Panel==
Use the exact information-panel template demonstrated in the approved example.
Preserve its template name, field names, field order, syntax, formatting, and established conventions. Do not substitute a generic infobox, create a different panel, add unrelated fields, or redesign the layout.
Use the image filename specified by the user or the Conservapedia logo, as directed by the user.
Use the specified chapter range in the information panel wherever the established template requires it.
Change only those field values that properly vary between pages. Retain established wording and standard values wherever the style guide requires them.
Add internal links to appropriate information-panel values only when the user has authorised internal linking and the style guide permits those links.
Do not invent publication details, dates, bibliographical information, or other metadata. Verify such information where necessary or flag it for human review.
==6. Complete Page Structure and Required Components==
Produce the entire page, not a partial template or an isolated chapter body.
Include every component required by the established style guide, in its prescribed order and format. These may include:
- The approved page title and naming convention.
- The exact approved information panel.
- The prescribed introductory paragraphs.
- The complete source text.
- Required headings, paragraph numbering, and paragraph anchors.
- Authorised internal links.
- The prescribed See Also section.
- The exact Public Domain Declaration.
- The Index section, using the specified chapter range.
- Required navigation elements and volume links.
- The established categories.
- Any additional mandatory components defined by the style guide.
Use the exact standard wording and markup for prescribed components. Do not create substitute declarations, invent See Also entries, fabricate index titles, or guess category names.
For chapter indexes, use verified titles wherever available. If a title is not available, investigate the existing Project materials and Conservapedia coverage. Do not present a guessed title as a verified existing article.
Do not omit required components merely because their exact wording or markup is not immediately available. Recover the approved example first; if it remains unavailable, ask for the necessary reference material.
==7. Internal Linking Rules==
Apply these rules only when the user authorises internal linking, except for links explicitly required by the style guide.
### 7.1 Identifying linkable subjects
Identify appropriate proper nouns and other historically significant subjects in both the original source text and the information panel. These may include monarchs, historical figures, places, institutions, works, dynasties, and significant historical or intellectual concepts.
Use editorial judgement. Link worthwhile subjects consistently without indiscriminately linking every occurrence of an ordinary word or phrase.
### 7.2 Verify existing coverage
Check Conservapedia to determine whether a relevant encyclopedic page exists.
Use the best-supported canonical encyclopedic title as the link destination, rather than automatically adopting the title of an existing page.
Do not assume an existing title is correct or optimal merely because the page exists. Existing titles may be ambiguous, insufficiently precise, provisional, or inconsistent with appropriate naming conventions.
Distinguish verified existing pages from proposed article destinations.
### 7.3 Canonical titles and piped links
Choose canonical titles using historical accuracy, established naming conventions, contextual identification, and the need to distinguish subjects from similarly named people, places, works, and concepts.
Preserve the original source wording through piped links wherever necessary.
For example, if the source says "Cyrus" and the historical context establishes that it refers to Cyrus II the Great, use `[[Cyrus II the Great|Cyrus]]`, regardless of whether the destination page currently exists.
Similarly, if the source says "Caesar" and the context clearly identifies Gaius Julius Caesar, use `[[Gaius Julius Caesar|Caesar]]` rather than automatically linking to a less precise title such as `[[Caesar]]`.
Use the surrounding context to distinguish people, places, and concepts with similar names. Do not guess when the identity cannot be established reliably. Flag genuinely ambiguous cases for human review.
### 7.4 Missing articles and inferior existing titles
If a relevant page does not exist, do not omit a worthwhile link merely because the destination is missing. Use the best-supported canonical encyclopedic title for the proposed article. This identifies missing coverage and facilitates future article creation.
If an existing article uses an inferior or ambiguous title, use the best-supported canonical title in the generated wikitext where appropriate and include the existing article in the editorial review list for consideration of a rename, consolidation, or other corrective action.
Do not assume a rename is necessarily appropriate without considering the existing content and relevant naming conventions.
### 7.5 Alternative names and redirects
Identify common alternative names, spellings, and former article titles that may warrant redirects to the canonical article.
Include useful suggestions in the editorial review list. Do not claim that a redirect already exists unless its existence has been verified.
### 7.6 Consistency and accuracy
Link subjects consistently. Preserve the supplied wording and do not rewrite the primary source to accommodate preferred article titles.
Do not invent biographical facts, publication details, article titles, or other metadata. Flag uncertainties for human review.
Treat web searches as a means of checking Conservapedia's existing coverage and evaluating its current article titles, not as authority to rewrite the source or blindly reproduce existing naming inconsistencies.
The supplied source remains the basis of the reproduced text.
## 8. Public Domain Declaration
Use the exact Public Domain Declaration prescribed by the established style guide or approved example.
Do not replace it with a newly written declaration, shorten it, expand it, or substitute a generic copyright statement.
Distinguish between the prescribed wording and any separate legal or editorial questions requiring verification. Do not make unsupported claims about copyright status, publication history, or the legal status of a particular edition.
If the prescribed declaration cannot be recovered, request the approved reference rather than inventing replacement wording.
## 9. See Also, Index, and Categories
Follow the approved conventions for the See Also section, chapter index, and categories.
For the Index, use the chapter range specified by the user. Include the appropriate volume navigation and chapter links according to the established example.
Use verified existing page titles when available. Clearly distinguish proposed destinations from confirmed existing pages in the separate editorial review.
Apply the required categories consistently. Do not invent category names or claim that categories or destination pages exist without verification where verification is required.
Do not omit, reorder, or redesign these components unless the style guide explicitly allows it.
## 10. Editorial Review and Recommendations
Alongside the finished wikitext, provide a concise editorial review list identifying proposed new articles, suggested renames or consolidations, potentially useful redirects, and unresolved naming questions.
Where applicable, separate recommendations into the following groups:
- **New articles:** Worthwhile subjects for which no suitable existing article has been verified.
- **Potential renames or consolidations:** Existing articles whose titles or coverage may warrant editorial review.
- **Potential redirects:** Alternative spellings, common names, and former titles that may usefully redirect to canonical articles.
- **Items requiring human review:** Uncertain identities, competing naming conventions, or recommendations that cannot be resolved confidently.
For each recommendation, provide the proposed canonical title and a brief reason. Identify the current page title when verified and relevant.
If no additional naming or redirection recommendations are identified, explicitly state that no additional recommendations were identified.
Clearly distinguish verified facts about the current state of Conservapedia from editorial recommendations, proposed article titles, and matters requiring further investigation.
Do not automatically rename existing articles, create redirects, create new pages, or otherwise alter Conservapedia. These are recommendations for the human editor to review and implement where appropriate.
## 11. Final Verification Before Delivery
Before presenting the finished page, check the entire output against the style guide and approved examples, component by component.
Verify:
- Page title and naming conventions.
- Exact introductory paragraphs.
- Exact information-panel template and formatting.
- Image filename or logo selection.
- Fidelity and completeness of the supplied source text.
- Heading levels, paragraph numbering, and anchors.
- Internal links and canonical titles, where authorised.
- Public Domain Declaration.
- See Also section.
- Index and specified chapter range.
- Categories and navigation elements.
- Any other mandatory requirements in the established style guide.
Do not claim that an element has been verified when it has merely been guessed or reconstructed.
If a required element cannot be verified, resolve the issue from the available source material or identify the precise missing reference before proceeding. Do not silently substitute invented content.
## 12. Output Format and Editorial Responsibility
Return the complete raw MediaWiki wikitext as one continuous, copy-and-paste-ready code block wherever practicable.
The code block must contain the entire page, including all required syntax, formatting, navigation, metadata, and categories. Do not interrupt it with explanations or editorial commentary.
Place the concise editorial review outside the wikitext block so that recommendations and uncertainties cannot accidentally become part of the published page.
The AI prepares the page for human review and publication. The human editor remains responsible for checking the final text, links, metadata, naming decisions, and legal status before publication.
The governing principle is exact compliance with the established style guide, not creative reconstruction. When the guide supplies a standard, reproduce it. When the source supplies text, preserve it. When information is missing, verify it or ask. Never invent a replacement and present it as compliant.