I downloaded the entirety of wikipedia as of 2024 to use as a reference for “truth” in the post-slop world. Maybe I should grab the 2022 version as well just in case…
Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Pro@mander.xyz to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
unit327@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Why would wikipedia of all things be your go to for that?
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.
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.
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.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikipedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Well now I want to know about jackdaws and voter fraud
db2@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
unzips
HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Is there a danger that unscrupulous actors will try and build out a Wikipedia edit history with this and try to mass skew articles with propaganda using their “trusted” accounts?
Or what might be the goal here? Is it just stupid and bored people?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So Wikipedia has three methods for deleting an article:
- Proposed deletion (PROD): An editor tags an article explaining why they think it should be uncontroversially deleted. After seven days, an administrator will take a look and decide if they agree. Proposed deletion of an article can only be done once, even this can be removed by anyone passing by who disagrees with it, and an article deleted via PROD can be recreated at any time.
- Articles for deletion (AfD): A discussion is held to delete an article. Pretty much always, this is about the subject’s notability. After the discussion (a week by default), a closer (almost always an administrator, especially for contentious discussions) will evaluate the merits of the arguments made and see if a consensus has been reached to e.g. delete, keep, redirect, or merge. Articles deleted via discussion cannot be recreated until they’ve satisfied the concerns of said discussion, else they can be summarily re-deleted.
- Speedy deletion: An article is so fundamentally flawed that it should be summarily deleted at best or needs to be deleted as soon as possible at worst. The nominating editor will choose one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), and an administrator will delete the article if they agree. Like a PROD, articles deleted this way can be recreated at any time.
This new criterion has nothing to do with preempting the kind of trust building you described. The editor who made it will not be treated any differently than before. It’s there so editors don’t have to deal with the bullshit asymmetry principle and comb through everything to make sure it’s verifiable. Sometimes editors will make these LLM-generated articles because they think they’re helping but don’t know how to do it themselves, sometimes it’s for some bizarre agenda (e.g. there’s a sockpuppet editor who’s been occasionally popping up trying to push articles generated by an LLM about the Afghan–Mughal Wars), but whatever the reason, it just does nothing but waste other editors’ time and can be effectively considered unverified. All this criterion does is expedite the process of purging their bullshit.
I’d argue meticulously building trust to push an agenda isn’t a prevalent problem on Wikipedia, but that’s a very different discussion.
baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
How frequently are images generated/modified by diffusion models uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? I can wrap my head around evaluating cited sources for notability, but I don’t know where to start determining the repute of photographs. So many images Wikipedia articles use are taken by seemingly random people not associated with any organization.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So far, I haven’t seen all that many, and the ones that are are very obvious like a very glossy crab at the beach wearing a Santa Claus hat. I definitely have yet to see one that’s undisclosed, let alone actively disguising itself. I also have yet to see someone try using an AI-generated image on Wikipedia. The process of disclaiming generative AI usage is trivialized in the upload process with an obvious checkbox, so the only incentive not to is straight-up lying.
I can’t say how much this will be an issue in the future or what good steps are to finding and eliminating it should it become one.
xinayder@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
How do I get started on contributing to new articles (written by a human) for my language? I always wanted to help out but never found an easy way to do so.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m going to write this from the perspective of the English Wikipedia, but most specifics should have some analog in other Wikipedias. By “contribute to new articles”, do you mean create new articles, contribute to articles which are new that you come across, or contribute to articles which you haven’t before (thus “new to you”)? Asking because the first one has a very different – much more complicated – answer from the other two.
Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Unidan was a legend, he will be missed.
snf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You know, I think I’m overdue for a donation to Wikipedia. They honestly might end up being the last bastion of sanity
logicbomb@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They call the rule “LLM-generated without human review”. The specific criteria are mistakes that LLMs frequently make.
pdxfed@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
common wikipedia w
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wikipedia certainly doesn’t need AI to fuck up their articles.
Plenty of biased, incorrect stuff done by themselves.glimse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Link the incorrect stuff
Vupware@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
This has since been corrected, but there is a great video by BadEmpanada about the state of the Holodomor’s page:
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Wikipedia has a giant article regurgitating the false claims from the extremist Falun Gong cult that China is stealing their organs.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
80% of political stuff or with political importance.
biotin7@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
& this cannot be abused by Admins with agendas ?
Natanael@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Wiki deletions move articles to an archived status. You can appeal.
L3s@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Too many people being rude to eachother, locking it. Lets be better.
9point6@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Oh for fuck’s sake…
I’d not considered this was happening
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Isn’t Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
Skua@kbin.earth 3 weeks ago
Reddit seems to be a substantial source if the many bits of questionable advice that google famously offered are any indication
9point6@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 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 rejected.