Isn't the Wikipedia article usually already the summary of the topic?

If there's an article with more than 20 references to papers it's usually already abridged enough.

Just auto-generate videos with AI images and voiceover and add subway surfers gameplay on the side for those who think this slop is needed.

Wikipedia has in some ways become a byword for sober boringness, which is excellent.

This is both funny and also an excellent summary of why Wikipedia uniquely has an incentive not to jump on the AI bandwagon. Like a bank maintaining COBOL decades after everyone else moved on, its (goal of) reputation for reliability means that there's a strong internal conservative faction opposed to introducing new disruptive features.

Wikipedia would probably be the only organization that I would trust with AI. They've been using it for a while now to flag sections that might need to be rewritten, but they don't let the AI write anything itself, only notify human editors that there might be a problem. Or, at least that was what I heard a couple of ywars ago when they talked about it last.