Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Technology
107
Beiträge
46
Kommentatoren
2
Aufrufe
-
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date
How did you determine that?
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren't.
How do you know they often aren't? I'm an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I've have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
-
How do you know they often aren't? I'm an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I've have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
Because I see the things they're getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn't actually check the sources.
I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
-
Manual approval process would kill the site I think, there's just so much content on it that gets updated constantly it would just grind it all to a halt
Right, and by manual approval it just would be the absolute lowest priority. Kind of like the automated message "we're expecting higher than normal call volumes" as companies gently tell us their margins are more important than their customers.
-
Because I see the things they're getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn't actually check the sources.
I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
I'll click on them and then read them.
Here are two pages I've gone through a lot I can verify have correct citations in them. In fact, one of the citations in one of these is my research! which I know for certain was cited correctly.
-
I'll click on them and then read them.
Here are two pages I've gone through a lot I can verify have correct citations in them. In fact, one of the citations in one of these is my research! which I know for certain was cited correctly.
I’ll click on them and then read them.
And how will that allow you to know if they're right or not?
-
A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of "reliable sources" that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.
And they have.
You're just salty that the russian and chinese propaganda edits are thrown out as soon as they pop up lol
-
Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?
Thanks!
This looks to be a page about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth
-
I'm going to write this from the perspective of the English Wikipedia, but most specifics should have some analog in other Wikipedias. By "contribute to new articles", do you mean create new articles, contribute to articles which are new that you come across, or contribute to articles which you haven't before (thus "new to you")? Asking because the first one has a very different – much more complicated – answer from the other two.
Both. How do I get started creating a new article, and how do I contribute to them, or other articles?
-
You're just salty that the russian and chinese propaganda edits are thrown out as soon as they pop up lol
People getting massacred near a square? Pfff, cia psyop. Ignore all the journalists that were there. They were all CIA plants and even if they weren't, look, some even said it wasn't actually a massacre. Watch this YouTube video, man.. check his sources! The first one totally doesn't say it was a massacre. Whatever, man, have a ban for calling us tankies! (Okay, that last bit was my bad, should've seen that one coming, they were just waiting for a reason, no matter how flimsy)
They're so braindead that they link videos whose own freaking sources contradict them. But yeah, it's wikipedia sources that are wrong.
-
Because I see the things they're getting from Wikipedia and I am them, and they admit they didn't actually check the sources.
I’ve have yet to come across any citations that were wrong.
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
How would you determine that a cited source was wrong?
Subject matter experts do still exist. They're dying off, and it's unclear how many more we intend to create. But we do still have some.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You know, I think I'm overdue for a donation to Wikipedia. They honestly might end up being the last bastion of sanity
-
Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date
How did you determine that?
Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.
True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren't.
For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good. Even the politically contentious stuff tries to give the most “balanced”/“mainstream” interpretation usually.
There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.
I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.
It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.
-
Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?
This guy is a troll and he's going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.
I'm just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.
-
Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?
I read most this article and don't see how any of it is false or misinformation. Literally the first word in the page is "alleged", and it's full of arguments with linked citations from both sides
-
NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.
Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.
-
A lot of western liberals really do treat it like the Holy Scripture. Any intelligence agencies would just have to pay a few admins and higher some people to sculpt the list of "reliable sources" that Wikipedia uses and they can basically fully control what hundreds of millions of neoliberals believe.
And they have.
Well you're free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren't.
-
Here you go, Would you like me to cut your food for you too?
"Here's a thing I believe in"
"I would like proof it is a thing"
"What are you, stupid? Don't ask me for proof."
-
I read most this article and don't see how any of it is false or misinformation. Literally the first word in the page is "alleged", and it's full of arguments with linked citations from both sides
Clearly we're the sheeple for accepting sources and citations and they're the only one who can see the truth between the lines of how his favorite nation is actually misunderstood.
-
not interested in doing work for others.
There have been plenty instances of manipulation over the years and shady practices in the organisation itself.
Unbelievable there are still so many gullible people still thinking it's a reputable source.
if you love it so much for some reason then keep using it.
garbage in, garbage outWhen you make claims, you give proof. That's how things work in reality.
-
I’ll click on them and then read them.
And how will that allow you to know if they're right or not?
Then I read them and use my critical thinking skills. For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.
But regardless,
Isn't that a broader question as to what we consider truth and not something specific to wikipedia ?
