Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Technology
34
Beiträge
25
Kommentatoren
2
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
The headline reflects a sensible move by Wikipedia to protect content quality. AI-generated articles often include errors or fake citations, so giving admins the authority to quickly delete such content helps maintain accuracy and credibility. While there's some risk of overreach, the policy targets misuse, not responsible AI-assisted editing, and aligns with Wikipedia’s existing standards for removing low-quality material.
-
The headline reflects a sensible move by Wikipedia to protect content quality. AI-generated articles often include errors or fake citations, so giving admins the authority to quickly delete such content helps maintain accuracy and credibility. While there's some risk of overreach, the policy targets misuse, not responsible AI-assisted editing, and aligns with Wikipedia’s existing standards for removing low-quality material.
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
-
Nice one
-
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
Username does not check out.
-
This post did not contain any content.
common wikipedia w
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself.
I see that em dash I know what you're doing
-
Isn't Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
Reddit seems to be a substantial source if the many bits of questionable advice that google famously offered are any indication
-
Isn't Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
Do you think these people surreptitiously submitting articles written by AI are gonna be capable of validating what they're submitting is even true? Particularly if the (presumably effective) Wikipedia defense for this is detecting made up citations?
This kind of thing makes something valuable to everyone, like Wikipedia, ultimately a less valuable resource, and should be resisted and rejected by anyone with their head screwed on
-
It really is crazy how predictable it is.
-
It really is crazy how predictable it is.
Even saying fair question set off alarms. At this point saying anything good about a response at the start is immediate red flag.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikimedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
-
Do you think these people surreptitiously submitting articles written by AI are gonna be capable of validating what they're submitting is even true? Particularly if the (presumably effective) Wikipedia defense for this is detecting made up citations?
This kind of thing makes something valuable to everyone, like Wikipedia, ultimately a less valuable resource, and should be resisted and rejected by anyone with their head screwed on
Oh, I think this is a good move by Wikipedia. I just hate to imagine the disaster that ouroboros of AI citing AI generated Wikipedia articles would come up with.
-
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
It always feels weird when people write an essay as if this is their final quarter project for high school. Too neat, thoughts too organized, much flowery proses.
-
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikimedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
Well now I want to know about jackdaws and voter fraud
-
I've started to drop using emdashes because AI ruined them--bastards.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's a step. Why wouldn't they default to not accepting any AI generated content, and maybe have a manual approval process? It would both protect the content and discourage LLM uses where llms suck.
-
Well now I want to know about jackdaws and voter fraud
unzips
-
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikimedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
How frequently are images generated/modified by diffusion models uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? I can wrap my head around evaluating cited sources for notability, but I don't know where to start determining the repute of photographs. So many images Wikipedia articles use are taken by seemingly random people not associated with any organization.
