[05.06.2024] Updated content, AnKing-MCAT/AnKingMed, ID 1461501

View Suggestion on AnkiHub

@Michael_B seems straightforward and reasonable to my eyes.

Agreed, some users add their own personalized edits to the cards & we wanna keep an eye out for that so that, if we are to accept a suggestion, it doesn’t affect other users and remains just a personalized edit for the author. As a maintainer, you’ll see a “revert” button for each section (e.g., Text, Extra, tags, etc). A quick press of that will resolve things

This isn’t available on your end yet, but I wanted to share what it looks like for future reference (screenshot from another suggestion where I have the button circled):

Last thing I wanna point out is, we’ll want to ask authors to include references/sources for any changes/additions to the content of a card so that it can be fact-checked by us maintainers. I will merge this suggestion but ask the author to add on references for future suggestions

Ah, that’s super good to know. I knew we had done something similar before in one or two of my cards, and I had wondered how it works. That’s a good detail

Hey @fohanc, thank you for this suggestion! For future suggestions, please include a source to support your rationale

100%. One more thing is we want uniformity across cards. You might’ve already seen me reference “sister cards/notes.” In this case, we do have one & since it’s just as applicable to that sister note (1554002592425), I’m going to add it into its Extra section via a separate suggestion. This is by no means something we expect of authors but I’ll include it in our suggestion guidelines

How do you go about cross-referencing the sister notes? Just a straightforward search, or do you have another workflow for that?

Yup, just a search for keywords and you’ll see them pop up. Look for the words that would be expected to be common between sister notes. So between “simple squamous” and “stratified squamous,” the common denominator is “squamous” as a keyword

Okay, that makes sense. Just wanted to make sure you didn’t have some ninja technique that I was unaware of outside of the obvious stuff.

What if my source is just ChatGPT? It hasn’t made any mistakes so far and saves you from the troubling of having to search for a very specific piece of information through multiple sources.

As reliable as ChatGPT typically is, it’s probably best practice to have an actual source cited.

In some cases, you can just ask ChatGPT to cite you a source and it’s as simple as that (obviously double-checking it). I’ve definitely done it in a pinch before.

I think the best work around for ChatGPT sourced info is using a source that verifies the same info as give by the GPT

I was thinking about that actually, but it’ll take more out of my study time. I suppose I’ll hold off on making new content suggestions until my own MCAT date passes.

Of course, since ChatGPT itself gets it’s info from other web sources. Speaking of, I think I found the source it got these definitions from: Epithelium: What It Is, Function & Types

1 Like