• L3s@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    Too many people being rude to eachother, locking it. Lets be better.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Oh for fuck’s sake…

    I’d not considered this was happening (people submitting AI wiki articles)

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

  • snf@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    30 days ago

    You know, I think I’m overdue for a donation to Wikipedia. They honestly might end up being the last bastion of sanity

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      30 days ago

      Why wouldn’t they default to not accepting any AI generated content

      If you can accurately detect what content is AI generated, you’ll have a company worth billions overnight

    • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      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

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        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.

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    They call the rule “LLM-generated without human review”. The specific criteria are mistakes that LLMs frequently make.

  • Bloomcole@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    30 days ago

    Wikipedia certainly doesn’t need AI to fuck up their articles.
    Plenty of biased, incorrect stuff done by themselves.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Wikipedia has a giant article regurgitating the false claims from the extremist Falun Gong cult that China is stealing their organs.

            • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              29 days ago

              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

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                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.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          Why have two people replied to my request for a link with something other than a link

            • glimse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              30 days ago

              Thanks!

              This looks to be a page about the accusations and the counterarguments to said accusations, not a page claiming to the truth

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                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.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          I clicked all the words in your comment but none of them opened a browser window

          • Bloomcole@lemmy.worldBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            30 days ago

            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 out