Fluent text is not necessarily accurate, original or useful. Value comes from what the editor contributes before and after generation.
Creative Commons recommends TASL: title, author, source and licence. It helps preserve an image’s origin through reuse.
| Situation | What changes | Useful check |
|---|---|---|
| Author and source | The host is not necessarily the creator. | Keep the author’s requested name and original link. |
| Licence and version | Creative Commons alone does not specify a licence. | Record CC BY 4.0 with its link if that is the file’s licence. |
| Changes | Distinguish the original from your version. | State cropping or adaptation and check permitted uses. |
A supplied title remains recommended; CC 4.0 licences do not require it, unlike relevant earlier versions. A correct credit does not replace compliance with licence conditions.
Documentation : Creative Commons — Recommended practices for attribution ↗ · · Read the reference record →
Artificial intelligence can accelerate wording, but it does not know the real publishing responsibility, which facts were checked or what an error could mean for readers. Editorial work must supply those elements.
Published Editorial review
Publication director: Vincent Ferrer. Webmaster / Domain name owner: Alexis RZG.
Define the reader, question and decision the page should support. Vague instructions usually produce interchangeable text. Good preparation gathers scope, constraints and project-specific data.
If a generic answer already exists everywhere, add local data, a tool, explicit comparison, experience, reasoned selection or simpler access to a complex source.
AI should not invent missing facts. Work from identified documents, authorised internal data or relevant external sources. Keep important claims linked to their origin.
Current, sensitive and numerical information must be checked after generation. Plausible output can mix versions, apply a rule to the wrong country or fabricate a reference.
Reorganise around real use, remove filler, and add limits, examples and distinctions the draft missed. The contribution may also be a calculation, table, filter or database.
The goal is not to hide the tool but to make it secondary to the quality of the editorial work.
Check names, dates, units, links, quotations and contradictions. Look for overconfidence, repetition, false balance and advice issued without knowing the reader’s context.
For risky subjects, obtain qualified review and state the content’s limitations clearly.
Identify changeable elements and decide when to revisit them. A useful page can become harmful when its price, link, rule or procedure remains frozen.
Track corrections, searches with no results and confusing passages: these signals show where the next update matters most.
Before generation, gather authorised documents, original links, definitions and constraints that should govern the text. Clearly separate confirmed material, matters still to check and editorial decisions.
After generation, connect every important statement to the evidence pack. If nothing supports it, remove it, narrow it or find an appropriate source.
This pack simplifies future corrections and avoids repeating the entire research process during an update.
Effective review does not consist of asking the same tool whether its own text is correct. Compare output with sources, test examples and examine passages where the tone appears more certain than the evidence.
Read the page as a visitor: is the objective clear, are facts distinct from advice and does the reader know what to do next? Accurate but poorly organised writing can remain unhelpful.
Sensitive subjects require competent human validation before publication.
Transparency should explain the useful role of the tool: assistance with drafting, translation, structure or illustration. Publishing every internal instruction is unnecessary when it does not help readers assess the content.
The essential information is who assumes responsibility, what was checked and how an error can be reported.
A clear disclosure strengthens accountability; it cannot excuse unreviewed content.
Creating many variants around closely related queries usually produces interchangeable pages that are difficult to maintain. Combining questions into a complete resource is generally more useful when the reader need is the same.
A new page is justified when it serves a genuinely distinct use, dataset, procedure or audience. Replacing a few keywords is not an editorial contribution.
Portfolio quality also depends on removing duplicates and drafts that no longer meet a real need.
For each proposed reference, open the record, check title and authors, then locate the passage invoked. Distinguish missing references, irrelevant references and relevant but limited support.
An answer citing a real document may still overstate its scope. Fictional example: a paper covers one population while the summary presents a general rule. Correct the sentence and its limits.
Use our AI-answer checking method and keep the checked passages alongside the links.
The decisive criterion is not whether AI was used, but whether the published work adds assessable value. A useful page has a purpose, verifiable material, suitable organisation, identifiable responsibility and a maintenance process.
Report a correction ↗When several pages support a claim, trace their original documents before counting confirmations. To choose a destination, compare directory purposes and source documentation.
Distinguish independent sources from repeated claims → · Compare documented resources →
