Draft talk:Open systems theory

COI disclosure for connected contributor

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thjortel, the {{connected contributor}} template is supposed to be placed on the top of a talk page (see the docs), and new talk page sections are placed below older ones. I have added the template on the top of this page for you (and filled it out correctly as described in the docs) and moved the talk page sections in the correct order. Since this is a signed talk page message from you, I have noy altered or removed it. Please read documentation, guidelines and policies yourself and don't ask chatbots for help. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

OK to delete this section then? Trond Hjorteland (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you are okay to delete it now (the relevant guideline is WP:TPO if you are curious). Personally I would just remove the {{connected contributor}} though and leave the short message that you left in the otherlinks parameter. More disclosure is never a bad idea, the more willing you are in disclosing conflicts of interest, the more people will be willing to accept the edits that you have the conflict with. But you are also okay to remove it, and you have my permission to remove my replies as well, if you prefer that. Keep in mind that the history of the page is public (or the commit log in git terms). ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Drafting process disclosure

This draft was prepared using a large language model as a drafting aid, then substantively reviewed and revised across four rounds by Merrelyn Emery, the co-developer of the OST framework, during April–May 2026. Specific revisions from Merrelyn Emery cover the origins narrative (two coalescing streams — transactional/active-adaptation and sociotechnical work design), the chronology (identifying the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project as the context in which DP1/DP2 were discovered), the vocabulary register (removing American management-consulting terminology in favour of OST-tradition prose), the statistical methods description (corrected to Merrelyn Emery's original wording), and reference selection for Unique Designs and causal path analysis.

I disclose LLM use here in accordance with WP:LLM. I take responsibility for the content and welcome specific feedback on which claims to check further against sources. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thjortel: the English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, and this is not "in accordance with WP:LLM". Please take a moment to read the guideline (better known as WP:NOLLM) yourself, don't ask an AI or chatbot about it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See my reply on Thjortel, which I repeat here: The draft is not generated by an LMM, but by Merrelyn and me in collaboration. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I do not plan to resubmit. This whole endeavour has taken too much time already, and a full rewrite with the necessary reviews by Merrelyn is not possible. Hope someone else can pick up the mantle later on, as OST really deserves a page along with Fred and Merrelyn Emery. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, writing a Wikipedia article is a time consuming process. It is in fact one of the most difficult tasks that you can do on Wikipedia. If you change your mind, then the WP:YFA guide may be helpful. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I will have another go, following your recommendations. See now that working locally and submitting the whole thing in one go set off some alarms, probably. And, as you said, staging it is a good way to highlight Merrelyn's contributions. I should probably change the LLM disclosure now? Delete?

Thank you for your help and guidance, BTW. Very constructive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia (the MediaWiki software) doesn't have a concept of branches like Git does, so staging in that sense doesn't really work. The closest analogy are the different WP:NAMESPACES, but a page can only exist in one namespace at a time (it's more like directories in a file system). What I meant is that you should add her contributions in separate edits (commits) with edit summaries (commit messages) that attribute them to her. Copyright and licensing is complicated, and I am not an expert, but I believe that would satisfy the attribution requirements of the CC-BY-SA license (and GFDL) that the text is released under. You can probably also write something here on the talk page that explains that parts of the text was contributed by so-and-so on such-and-such date, etc etc.

While a lot of people do genuinely make large initial contributions without that being a sign of anything wrong, it can seem alarming when a new user does it. But it is not an automatic sign of malfeasance. Personally I believe in showing my work, so I save often. I'm also used to Git, and to thinking that "commits are cheap" and I try to break edits (and commits) into logical chunks so that anyone reading the history will see how I approached a problem/wrote something and what my thinking process was. This is something that has gotten worse with the increased tendency of people to offload this to LLMs (also in software, it's getting really hard to find people that actually know how to write code or even care about it anymore), and it can be indicative of someone using AI on Wikipedia. But it's never the only way that you can identify it here. The first revision of your draft had more than enough signs that it would have been identified (depending on who looked at it) with or without your disclosure. If you are planning on contributing within our guidelines (as I assume you are, since you have continued working on your draft), then sure you can remove that disclosure from your user page. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)