Comment on Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations

unit327@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?

  source

  • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date; its perceived unreliability as to its correctness is largely a misunderstanding that arose from misconceptions as to why one can’t (or shouldn’t, depending on case) cite it in academia. People think that it can’t be cited because of its unreliability but in reality it’s simply because it’s a third hand source; i.e. a resource.

    Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

    source

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date

      How did you determine that?

      Wikipedia is built near-purely on second hand sources, which is how all encyclopedias are intended to be constructed. As long as one ensures the validity of the second hand source used, encyclopedias are great resources.

      True, but basically nobody does check that the sources are valid, and they often aren’t.

      source

      • crash_thepose@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        How do you know they often aren’t? I’m an academic and regularly use wikipedia to find citations for sources. I’ve have yet to come across any citations that weren’t wrong.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • andros_rex@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        For anything that is not politically contentious, it’s very good.

        There are communities of people which hyperfixate on certain topics. Think dinosaurs and trains. If a serious Dino-head sees a mistake about the length of Diplodocus, they are going to drop everything and fix it immediately.

        I routinely check wiki sources - I’ve taught a lot of college kids that as a way to quickly find sources for papers. Most of the time, topics I know a lot about from my own educational background match what I see on wiki and cite the same kinds of sources I would use.

        It’s not perfect - there’s the infamous story of an American teenager writing all of Scots Wikipedia without knowing any Scots - but you have to respect the fact that there are a lot of people who are obsessed with certain topics and will watch their pet articles like a hawk.

        source
  • haloduder@thelemmy.club ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    This guy is a troll and he’s going to keep asking questions as long as people keep answering them.

    I’m just going to block him and move on; got no time to suffer fools like this any more.

    source

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Man, you people really loath anyone who doesn’t just shut up and agree.

      source
  • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    NATOpedia is a great resource if you go in with an assumption of a pro-western bias, but a source of truth lmao.

    source

    • eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Someone is mad their sources got removed for not being credible.

      source

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        What a shock that someone who pretends to be an anarchist would go to bat to defend the reliablity of far right western propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Remember, if it doesn’t’ have the Western Neo-liberal seal of approval, it’s not credible and should be removed, that’s the anarchist way!

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You’re just salty that the russian and chinese propaganda edits are thrown out as soon as they pop up lol

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Well you’re free to submit sources that are credible and challenge that old ones aren’t.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • arararagi@ani.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I’m not using the conservative pedia.

        source