Wikipedia To Use AI (wikimediafoundation.org)
- Reference: 0177221461
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/04/30/1518223/wikipedia-to-use-ai
- Source link: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/
Even more political bias then (Score:1, Troll)
but this time automated and more efficient.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, reality has had a well-known leftist bias since around the time of the big bang. I believe the technical term is "symmetry violation". But consider this: had it been a conservative, fair and balanced reality with no asymmetries it would have annihilated on itself and the Universe would not exist. So before you rise against the cultural Marxism of the Universe, think in advance what space-time leopards will eat your face in the process.
CP Violation != P violation (Score:2)
> But consider this: had it been a conservative, fair and balanced reality with no asymmetries it would have annihilated on itself and the Universe would not exist.
That's not actually correct. You are confusing parity (P) violation (lleft-right asymmetry) with charge-parity (CP) violation with the latter being necessary for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe. In our universe the weak interaction only couples to left-handed particles and right-handed anti-particles so both C and P separately are maximally violated by the weak interaction, hence it's their combination, CP, that is relevant to see if there is a matter-antimatter asymmetry.
However, if the
Excellent plan! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's use a technology prone to inserting errors to help moderate an encyclopedia"
Has the person who proposed this been checked for signs of brain activity?
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessary that, it was an appropriate AI agent manifesting a righteous retribution onto the corpus of text that brought it to life. A Nemesis, if you will.
A Paradox (Score:2)
> Has the person who proposed this been checked for signs of brain activity?
This creates bit of a paradox. If they are as stupid as this idea suggests then AI may actually be better than them in editting Wikipedia...but that would make this a good idea suggesting that they are smart but then making it a bad idea to have AI editting Wikipedia instead of them!
Already Using Lots of Bots (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia already uses lots of bots to update formatting fight vandalism, etc. It would be crazy if they avoided using newer technology to help improve the site.
I would assume that any informational changes would still come from (or at least be reviewed by) humans or there wouldn't be much point to it existing over just using the AI tools directly
Re: (Score:2)
> it does not take programming knowledge to add the task "Does the edit make any claims not present in the previous version without adding sources for them?"
That would be cool... except that LLMs suck at that kind of task. Like, they're really, really, bad at it. That's because they can't actually compare two documents that way, no matter how much people wish that were true.
> To be honest, that's a task that LLM can do reasonably well
LOL! No. No it's not. Sure, you'll get output that looks like it did the task, but the odds that the output is even remotely correct are vanishingly small.
Did you ever ask an LLM to summarize something? It's astonishingly bad at it, even if the output looks good at first glance. For e
Re: Already Using Lots of Bots (Score:2)
You really seem like you are on to something. Wonder why so many people believe otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
> It would be crazy if they avoided using newer technology to help improve the site.
It is if the only reason they're using it is because it's newer. LLMs make shit up all the time. Basically this approach is going to fill Wikipedia with unverifiable falsehoods. So it's an inappropriate technology to use.
(It's even worse, of course, because I'd hazard a guess that most LLMs are actually trained on Wikipedia to begin with, so not only will they invent falsehoods and insert those into the content, but also
Re: (Score:3)
"Scaling the onboarding of new Wikipedia volunteers with guided mentorship." - This part is absolutely fucking hilarious since Wikipedia's shitheeled head-up-ass arrogant fuckface "moderators" see any sign of competency as proof of being a "sockpuppet."
Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't participate or some fascist-wannabe petty thug like the current "ArbCom" Gestapo Fuckfaces will come in like the raging nazi-shitwit bullies that they all fucking are.
Wikipedia To Use AI (Score:3)
So basically, access to information will be funnelled through a few mono companies. Not that Wikipedia was ever unbiased. Take a look at the Microsoft windows entry:
“Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, they were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent”
This despite WinNT being sold as the Internet Ecommerce Platform. but I guess while you have a ton of paid PR sitting on the Wikipedia. Facts don't matter.
--
HalGPT: I'm sorry, but I don't have any information on that topic.
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally thousands of free (as in MIT and Apache licenses) models for download for local usage. No need to trust a few companies.
Re: (Score:2)
True....IF you know they exist...
Re:Wikipedia To Use AI (Score:4, Insightful)
I would probably trust an organization that curates an encyclopedia to know something exists over other organizations with less... err... encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while, but WinNT for e-commerce? It was end-of-lifed only two years after e-commerce started to become widespread.
Get popcorn before it's out (Score:1)
I already see the outrage coming. Not that it will stop Wikipedia or the AI adoption in general, but it seems to feel good to shout at people, organizations, and companies who incorporate AI in their products and workflows.
fascist (Score:1)
On any controversial topic, try to make a wikipedia edit that fixes the most minor of non-grammatical issues, and it will be instantly reversed by the thought police.
Wikipedia is almost useless (Score:4, Insightful)
it is a great example of how influential people will falsify information to support their agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
> it is a great example of how influential people will falsify information to support their agenda.
Wikipedia is great for non-political stuff. I look up aircraft and maritime field info and it's generally pretty solid. I wouldn't rely on it when the subject is even remotely political or controversial though.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, more often than not, it is used to refute the false information spouted by influential people.
Cost cutting in the wrong place (Score:2)
Wikipedia's running costs haven't changed significantly in years, but their running costs are up by an order of magnitude. Lots of hiring of administrative staff, middle managers and other fluff.
With their current endowment and the annual income they get from various sources, they could create a nest egg that would fund their (old level of) expenses forever. But money begs to be spent, so...
...so now they are going to cut some content-related costs using AI? That's not where they need to be cutting.
AI is vandalism (Score:1)
AI did more to hurt Wikipedia than all the long term abusers on Wikipedia put together. I'd say AI is worse than the deletionists as well. Reminder that Nvidia got their funds for AI from Crypto mining in 2017. Then there is the fact that Wikipedia destroyed the Cebuano language version by making 6 million AI generated articles.
oh no no no no no (Score:2)
Bad idea.
Couldn't make wiki any worse (Score:3)
The power-editors on Wikipedia are terrible.
Fork that bitch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fork it now, and fork it hard.