Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Technology
122
Beiträge
50
Kommentatoren
125
Aufrufe
-
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 ?
-
Both. How do I get started creating a new article, and how do I contribute to them, or other articles?
The short answer is that I really, really suggest you try other things before trying to create your first article. This isn't just me; every experienced editor will tell you that creating a new article is one of the hardest things any editor can do, let alone a newer one. It's why the task center lists it as being appropriate for "advanced editors". Finding an existing article which interests you and then polishing and expanding it is almost always more rewarding, more useful, easier, and less stressful than creating an article from scratch. And if creating articles sounds appealing, expanding existing stub articles is great experience for that.
The long answer is "you can", but it's really hard:
- New editors are subject to Articles for Creation, or AfC, when creating an article. The article sits in a draft state until the editor flags it for review. The backlog is very long, and while reviewers can go in any order they want, they usually prioritize the oldest articles out of fairness and because most AfC submissions are about equal in urgency and time consumption. "Months" is the expected waiting time.
- If you're not using the English Wikipedia, you can try translating over a well-established article from English. There's no rule that says sources have to be in the language of the Wikipedia they're on, although it's still considered a big plus if sources are in the same language. You'd have to keep in mind that the target language may have standards not followed on the English Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia's notability guidelines are predicated on you understanding other policies and guidelines like "reliable sources" and "independent sources". They're also intentionally fuzzy so people don't play lawyer and follow the exact letter without considering the spirit of the guideline.
- The English Wikipedia currently has over 7 million articles. There are still a lot of missing articles (mostly in taxonomy, where notability is almost guaranteed), but you really need to know where to look.
- When choosing an article subject, it's extremely important to avoid COI.
- Assuming you have a subject you think meets criteria, now you have to go out and find reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject to confirm your hypothesis.
- Now you need to start the article, and you need to do this in a manner which:
- Is verifiable (all claims are cited)
- Is not original research (i.e. nothing you say can be based on "because I know it")
- Is reliable (all citations are to reliable sources)
- Is neutral (you've minimized bias as much as you can, let the sources speak for themselves, and made sure your source selection isn't biased)
- Is stylistically correct (there's a manual of style, but just use your best judgment, and small mistakes can be copy-edited out by people familiar with style guidelines)
- If the article is nominated for deletion, you have to keep your cool and argue based solely on guidelines (not on perceived importance of the subject) that the article should be kept.
- New articles are almost always given more scrutiny than articles which have been around; this isn't a cultural problem as much as it is a heuristic one.
- An article deleted feels much more personal than edits reverted (despite the fact that subject notability is 100% out of your control).
Some of these apply to normal editing too, but working within an article others have worked on and might be willing to help with is vastly easier than building one from scratch. If you want specific help in picking out, say, an article to try editing and are on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem acting like bowling bumpers if you're afraid your edits won't meet standards.
-
Well you're free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren't.
I tried that once, a bunch of power users got together and tried to dox me
-
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.
It's very easy to just spit out rote strawman that don't resemble anything I actually said, rather than actually engage with what I said.
-
You're just salty that the russian and chinese propaganda edits are thrown out as soon as they pop up lol
See? You've just straight up given up the game, immediately disregarding any pretense that you ever cared about reliable sources or honestly, and just straight up admit that it's only about politics alliegence. You will believe anything Wikipedia tells you, even if it openly comes from western propaganda outlets like the Victims of Communism Foundation or Radio Free Asia, because they agree with your politics.
-
I’ll click on them and then read them.
And how will that allow you to know if they're right or not?
Post-truther detected.
-
Post-truther detected.
Post truther is when you don't believe that people have the magic ability to determine if something is true by pure gut feeling.
All the liberal-fascists here whine about misinformation and post-truth, and then through a fucking fit that anyone suggest that they actually be serious about that.
You people don't want to combat misinformation, you want the misinformation you already believe to go unquestioned.
-
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 ?
How are you able to determine matters of fact by pure critical thinking? Are you really claiming that you are immune to lies?
For research I put trust in peer review articles by reputable journals.
Great! I wish Wikipedia was held to that standard, rather than regularly using tabloids, think tanks, and literal propaganda outlets.
-
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.
How unsurprising that a self-described "anarchist" is willing to treat far fight extremists like the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and the Falun Gong cult as infallible sources of truth so long as it lets them attack the geopolitical enemies of their country.
-
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
Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up the practice.[42][43] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a potential threat to the Party's authority and ideology, Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.[44]
If you cannot see any problems with the above paragraph, which does not say anything about "alleged", by the way, then I don't know what to tell you.
If you think that taking far right propaganda outlets like The Victims or Communism Memorial Foundation (which is a covid truther organization, among other things), then I don't know what to tell you.
Other than the fact that you don't actually want reliable information, you want information that confirms what you already believed.
-
"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."
Do you need me to send you a recording of me physically reading the text for you before it counts? Or are you a big enough boy to read it one your own? Were you actually asking in good faith because you genuinely wanted to know? Or were you just trying to be as oblique as possible to waste my time?
-
See? You've just straight up given up the game, immediately disregarding any pretense that you ever cared about reliable sources or honestly, and just straight up admit that it's only about politics alliegence. You will believe anything Wikipedia tells you, even if it openly comes from western propaganda outlets like the Victims of Communism Foundation or Radio Free Asia, because they agree with your politics.
Yessir, i do believe that the information on Wikipedia resembles the truth a lot more than anything that comes from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml or hexbear.net. And you know why? Because Wikipedia gives me sources i can read up and decide myself if that's bullshit or not, and those sources are not some bizarre substack ramblings or youtube videos with 150 views. And also because Wikipedia leaves politics aside as good as they can - if your perception of reality has anything to with what the world at large has agreed on, but there i lost ya, didn't i?
-
When you make claims, you give proof. That's how things work in reality.
Unless those claims are against China though, right? That's you're position.
-
Thanks!
This looks to be a page about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth
Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up the practice.[42][43] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a potential threat to the Party's authority and ideology, Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.[44]
The above paragraph is from the page, and it is claiming truth.
So you're just lying, you never actually wanted evidence, you were just trying to waste peoples time by asking them to provide it even when you will just ignore it and lie when they provide it.
More to the point, they don't have pages for other false claims that just "about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth". There's nothing like this for Pizzagate or Birtherism.
-
Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up the practice.[42][43] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a potential threat to the Party's authority and ideology, Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.[44]
The above paragraph is from the page, and it is claiming truth.
So you're just lying, you never actually wanted evidence, you were just trying to waste peoples time by asking them to provide it even when you will just ignore it and lie when they provide it.
More to the point, they don't have pages for other false claims that just "about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth". There's nothing like this for Pizzagate or Birtherism.
Did you copy and paste the wrong quote? That doesn't say anything about organ harvesting.
Also
