51
Credulous coverage of AI slop on Wikipedia (awful.systems)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/techtakes@awful.systems
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!

(90 seconds later)

We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about "AI" on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.

Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they're still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I'm wrong about that or the "rules" aren't enforced very strongly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

For posterity: English Wikipedia is deletionist, so your burden of proof is entirely backwards. I know this because I quit English WP over it; the sibling replies are from current editors who have fully internalized it. English WP's notability bar is very high and not moved by quantity of sources; it also has suffered from many cranks over the years, and we should not legitimize cranks merely because they publish on ArXiv.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    i'm more frustrated that NPOV has been forced into secondary positions behind reliable sources. just because a reliable source has said something does not justify its inclusion in an article where its inclusion would disturb the NPOV.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent