[DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

Hello here,

TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.

We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those articles
were in the form of:

* Problem description
* What is important
* What are the solutions
* Summary/ Conclusions

Or another recurring pattern:

* What is Apache Airflow
* Key Features
* Getting started
  * Installation
  * initialization
* Core concepts
* Diving deeper
* Best Practices
* Conclusions

All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
AI-generated content.

Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
knowledge rather than decrease it.

I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
criteria for those publications.

In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the article
did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to the
publications.

But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy Is
bad.

But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help to
generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
"increase the entropy".

While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary decision,
maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if we
want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.

Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
community decision.

J.

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>]

Yeah, you're probably right - so I'm ok with it that way :)


On Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 22:38 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Main reason - it might be a bit intimidating to get your article publicly
> discussed 'is it ok to publish'.
>
> sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:36 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> napisał:
>
> > Not for every vote.
> >
> > I wanted to get a generic co sensual on the criteria (which I think we
> > have) - now we need to figure out if arbitrary decision on that by me and
> > Briana (and maybe someone else who would like to be part of it). would be
> > fine :).
> >
> >
> > We've done it so far :). And we can like continue doing so if that's OK.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:22 użytkownik Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>
> > napisał:
> >
> >> Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow -
> >> Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be
> >> lazy-consensus)
> >> That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an
> >> objection if anything in the text needs our attention.
> >>
> >>
> >> Shahar
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello here,
> >> >
> >> > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> >> > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some
> >> submissions
> >> > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think
> we
> >> > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
> >> >
> >> > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those
> >> articles
> >> > were in the form of:
> >> >
> >> > * Problem description
> >> > * What is important
> >> > * What are the solutions
> >> > * Summary/ Conclusions
> >> >
> >> > Or another recurring pattern:
> >> >
> >> > * What is Apache Airflow
> >> > * Key Features
> >> > * Getting started
> >> >   * Installation
> >> >   * initialization
> >> > * Core concepts
> >> > * Diving deeper
> >> > * Best Practices
> >> > * Conclusions
> >> >
> >> > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing
> >> with
> >> > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in
> the
> >> > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure"
> for
> >> > AI-generated content.
> >> >
> >> > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they
> were
> >> > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of
> Airflow
> >> > knowledge rather than decrease it.
> >> >
> >> > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this
> is
> >> > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general
> >> acceptance
> >> > criteria for those publications.
> >> >
> >> > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> >> > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the
> >> article
> >> > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice
> >> for
> >> > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers
> to
> >> the
> >> > publications.
> >> >
> >> > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the
> entropy
> >> Is
> >> > bad.
> >> >
> >> > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an
> article
> >> > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to
> help
> >> to
> >> > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> >> > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> >> > "increase the entropy".
> >> >
> >> > While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary
> >> decision,
> >> > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure
> >> if we
> >> > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the
> >> article
> >> > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> >> > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
> >> >
> >> > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> >> > community decision.
> >> >
> >> > J.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

Main reason - it might be a bit intimidating to get your article publicly
discussed 'is it ok to publish'.

sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:36 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał:

> Not for every vote.
>
> I wanted to get a generic co sensual on the criteria (which I think we
> have) - now we need to figure out if arbitrary decision on that by me and
> Briana (and maybe someone else who would like to be part of it). would be
> fine :).
>
>
> We've done it so far :). And we can like continue doing so if that's OK.
>
> J.
>
> sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:22 użytkownik Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>
> napisał:
>
>> Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow -
>> Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be
>> lazy-consensus)
>> That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an
>> objection if anything in the text needs our attention.
>>
>>
>> Shahar
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello here,
>> >
>> > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
>> > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some
>> submissions
>> > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
>> > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
>> >
>> > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those
>> articles
>> > were in the form of:
>> >
>> > * Problem description
>> > * What is important
>> > * What are the solutions
>> > * Summary/ Conclusions
>> >
>> > Or another recurring pattern:
>> >
>> > * What is Apache Airflow
>> > * Key Features
>> > * Getting started
>> >   * Installation
>> >   * initialization
>> > * Core concepts
>> > * Diving deeper
>> > * Best Practices
>> > * Conclusions
>> >
>> > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing
>> with
>> > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
>> > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
>> > AI-generated content.
>> >
>> > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
>> > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
>> > knowledge rather than decrease it.
>> >
>> > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
>> > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general
>> acceptance
>> > criteria for those publications.
>> >
>> > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
>> > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the
>> article
>> > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice
>> for
>> > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to
>> the
>> > publications.
>> >
>> > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy
>> Is
>> > bad.
>> >
>> > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
>> > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help
>> to
>> > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
>> > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
>> > "increase the entropy".
>> >
>> > While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary
>> decision,
>> > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure
>> if we
>> > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the
>> article
>> > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
>> > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
>> >
>> > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
>> > community decision.
>> >
>> > J.
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>]

Not for every vote.

I wanted to get a generic co sensual on the criteria (which I think we
have) - now we need to figure out if arbitrary decision on that by me and
Briana (and maybe someone else who would like to be part of it). would be
fine :).


We've done it so far :). And we can like continue doing so if that's OK.

J.

sob., 30 lis 2024, 21:22 użytkownik Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>
napisał:

> Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow -
> Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be
> lazy-consensus)
> That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an
> objection if anything in the text needs our attention.
>
>
> Shahar
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello here,
> >
> > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
> > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
> > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
> >
> > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those
> articles
> > were in the form of:
> >
> > * Problem description
> > * What is important
> > * What are the solutions
> > * Summary/ Conclusions
> >
> > Or another recurring pattern:
> >
> > * What is Apache Airflow
> > * Key Features
> > * Getting started
> >   * Installation
> >   * initialization
> > * Core concepts
> > * Diving deeper
> > * Best Practices
> > * Conclusions
> >
> > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
> > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
> > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
> > AI-generated content.
> >
> > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
> > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
> > knowledge rather than decrease it.
> >
> > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
> > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
> > criteria for those publications.
> >
> > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the
> article
> > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
> > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to
> the
> > publications.
> >
> > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy
> Is
> > bad.
> >
> > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
> > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help
> to
> > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> > "increase the entropy".
> >
> > While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary
> decision,
> > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if
> we
> > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
> > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
> >
> > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> > community decision.
> >
> > J.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>]

Due to the fact that it's a publication that represents Apache Airflow -
Does it make sense to put such every new entry to a vote here? (could be
lazy-consensus)
That way we'll be able to somewhat monitor the entropy, and raise an
objection if anything in the text needs our attention.


Shahar

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> Hello here,
>
> TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
> that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
> need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
>
> We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those articles
> were in the form of:
>
> * Problem description
> * What is important
> * What are the solutions
> * Summary/ Conclusions
>
> Or another recurring pattern:
>
> * What is Apache Airflow
> * Key Features
> * Getting started
>   * Installation
>   * initialization
> * Core concepts
> * Diving deeper
> * Best Practices
> * Conclusions
>
> All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
> the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
> form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
> AI-generated content.
>
> Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
> really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
> knowledge rather than decrease it.
>
> I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
> the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
> criteria for those publications.
>
> In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the article
> did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
> the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to the
> publications.
>
> But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy Is
> bad.
>
> But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
> that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help to
> generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> "increase the entropy".
>
> While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary decision,
> maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if we
> want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
> is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
>
> Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> community decision.
>
> J.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Amogh Desai <am...@gmail.com>]

A general filtering for "clear" AI generated content would be really nice.

Validating content for correctness isn't an easy task (doing this will need
in depth knowledge
of Airflow which is an evolving project).


Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai


On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 2:26 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis
<fe...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:

> I agree with all points here.
>
>
>  - ferruzzi
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maciej Obuchowski <mo...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 5:45 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium
> publication and AI generated content
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe.
> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez
> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que
> le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>
>
>
> Blogs that duplicate content of the documentation, or provide surface level
> best practices can be a net negative even if they are providing information
> that's currently valid, since that can change later.
> In OpenLineage we've seen people coming to Slack or GitHub with problems
> due to following old, not updated guides in forgotten blogs, rather than
> updated
> documentation, and I'm pretty sure the same happens for Airflow.
>
> śr., 27 lis 2024 o 12:30 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał(a):
>
> > Hello here,
> >
> > TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> > https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
> > that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
> > need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
> >
> > We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those
> articles
> > were in the form of:
> >
> > * Problem description
> > * What is important
> > * What are the solutions
> > * Summary/ Conclusions
> >
> > Or another recurring pattern:
> >
> > * What is Apache Airflow
> > * Key Features
> > * Getting started
> >   * Installation
> >   * initialization
> > * Core concepts
> > * Diving deeper
> > * Best Practices
> > * Conclusions
> >
> > All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
> > the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
> > form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
> > AI-generated content.
> >
> > Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
> > really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
> > knowledge rather than decrease it.
> >
> > I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
> > the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
> > criteria for those publications.
> >
> > In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> > articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the
> article
> > did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
> > the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to
> the
> > publications.
> >
> > But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy
> Is
> > bad.
> >
> > But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
> > that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help
> to
> > generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> > and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> > "increase the entropy".
> >
> > While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary
> decision,
> > maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if
> we
> > want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
> > is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> > together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
> >
> > Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> > community decision.
> >
> > J.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

["Ferruzzi, Dennis" <fe...@amazon.com.INVALID>]

I agree with all points here.


 - ferruzzi


________________________________
From: Maciej Obuchowski <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 5:45 AM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.



Blogs that duplicate content of the documentation, or provide surface level
best practices can be a net negative even if they are providing information
that's currently valid, since that can change later.
In OpenLineage we've seen people coming to Slack or GitHub with problems
due to following old, not updated guides in forgotten blogs, rather than
updated
documentation, and I'm pretty sure the same happens for Airflow.

śr., 27 lis 2024 o 12:30 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał(a):

> Hello here,
>
> TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
> that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
> need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
>
> We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those articles
> were in the form of:
>
> * Problem description
> * What is important
> * What are the solutions
> * Summary/ Conclusions
>
> Or another recurring pattern:
>
> * What is Apache Airflow
> * Key Features
> * Getting started
>   * Installation
>   * initialization
> * Core concepts
> * Diving deeper
> * Best Practices
> * Conclusions
>
> All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
> the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
> form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
> AI-generated content.
>
> Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
> really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
> knowledge rather than decrease it.
>
> I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
> the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
> criteria for those publications.
>
> In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the article
> did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
> the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to the
> publications.
>
> But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy Is
> bad.
>
> But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
> that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help to
> generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> "increase the entropy".
>
> While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary decision,
> maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if we
> want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
> is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
>
> Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> community decision.
>
> J.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Publishing articles in Airflow Medium publication and AI generated content

[Maciej Obuchowski <mo...@apache.org>]

Blogs that duplicate content of the documentation, or provide surface level
best practices can be a net negative even if they are providing information
that's currently valid, since that can change later.
In OpenLineage we've seen people coming to Slack or GitHub with problems
due to following old, not updated guides in forgotten blogs, rather than
updated
documentation, and I'm pretty sure the same happens for Airflow.

śr., 27 lis 2024 o 12:30 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> napisał(a):

> Hello here,
>
> TL;DR; We have this very nice Airflow Publication
> https://medium.com/apache-airflow - and recently we had some submissions
> that were clearly Gen AI generated and provided no value and I think we
> need to agree on some general acceptance criteria.
>
> We had quite a few submissions submitted recently and mostly those articles
> were in the form of:
>
> * Problem description
> * What is important
> * What are the solutions
> * Summary/ Conclusions
>
> Or another recurring pattern:
>
> * What is Apache Airflow
> * Key Features
> * Getting started
>   * Installation
>   * initialization
> * Core concepts
> * Diving deeper
> * Best Practices
> * Conclusions
>
> All listed as bullet points describing a very generic way of dealing with
> the problems or just extracting stuff from airflow documentation in the
> form of bullet points and short paragraphs. Very typical "structure" for
> AI-generated content.
>
> Together with Briana we decided to reject those publications - they were
> really not adding any value and iMHO they "increase entropy" of Airflow
> knowledge rather than decrease it.
>
> I thought (after doing it) that it would be great to agree that this is
> the right thing to do and generally agree to some very general acceptance
> criteria for those publications.
>
> In the past we generally accepted pretty much all kinds of articles -
> articles for beginners, advanced topics after a brief review if the article
> did not have any misleading information / hallucinations / bad advice for
> the users. Those are submitted by authors who we accepted as writers to the
> publications.
>
> But IMHO accepting such AI-generated content that increases the entropy Is
> bad.
>
> But I think the right approach for anyone who wants to submit an article
> that while it's good to use AI for some part of the content and to help to
> generate such articles, the end results should be somewhat insightful
> and should "decrease the entropy" of Ariflow knowledge rather than
> "increase the entropy".
>
> While this is difficult to judge,  and it's more of an arbitrary decision,
> maybe we should agree that it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if we
> want to have some body or a group of people to decide whether the article
> is good to publish - I feel somewhat uncomfortable - even with Briana
> together - to make some arbitrary decisions there.
>
> Would love to hear what you think and how we could make it more of a
> community decision.
>
> J.
>