A group of Wikipedia editors have formed a group to address AI-generated content infiltrating the site.
-
A group of Wikipedia editors have formed a group to address AI-generated content infiltrating the site.
(And I think Gillian makes a great point. What does it say exactly about the ... "value" of this new technology)
(Also she used the wrong "their" and I corrected it, because it was driving me nuts, that's why the word "they're" is in red.)
@futurebird I dont trust Wikipedia editors. For example, in the early hours of April 2, 2025, a Wikipedia administrator known as Liz executed a quiet act of digital disappearance. Liz deleted the page documenting the 2024-2025 Southeast Europe protests, a movement that had brought hundreds of thousands into the streets from Belgrade to Sofia. This rigid adherence to process reveals Wikipedia’s deeper crisis: an institutional bias against emergent histories that challenge power.
-
@futurebird While you were fixing, you could have also corrected "Night's" to "Night".
But the point is a good one, regardless.
I'm no paragon of grammar and correctness. I just have a deep irrational sensitivity to a handful of errors and "their" is one of them.
-
@futurebird I dont trust Wikipedia editors. For example, in the early hours of April 2, 2025, a Wikipedia administrator known as Liz executed a quiet act of digital disappearance. Liz deleted the page documenting the 2024-2025 Southeast Europe protests, a movement that had brought hundreds of thousands into the streets from Belgrade to Sofia. This rigid adherence to process reveals Wikipedia’s deeper crisis: an institutional bias against emergent histories that challenge power.
Wikipedia can only be as good as the people who make the time to invest in it.
When I started editing there I would add biographies of famous women in fashion. These were swiftly deleted even though they met the requirement of being mentioned in print media: the majority of editors had "never heard" of these people.
Meanwhile video game designers were meticulously documented.
But, with persistence I was able to make change.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic on
-
Wikipedia can only be as good as the people who make the time to invest in it.
When I started editing there I would add biographies of famous women in fashion. These were swiftly deleted even though they met the requirement of being mentioned in print media: the majority of editors had "never heard" of these people.
Meanwhile video game designers were meticulously documented.
But, with persistence I was able to make change.
Grok replaced wikipedia.
-
A group of Wikipedia editors have formed a group to address AI-generated content infiltrating the site.
(And I think Gillian makes a great point. What does it say exactly about the ... "value" of this new technology)
(Also she used the wrong "their" and I corrected it, because it was driving me nuts, that's why the word "they're" is in red.)
@futurebird Wikipedia is trash anyway, it does not matter what happens to it.
I remember back in the early 2000's when Wikipedia warlords from the left were constantly editing out any mentions to human rights abuses in Venezuela, that alone convinced me that Wikipedia is just a gigantic opinion blog mascarading as an open encyclopedia. -
Grok replaced wikipedia.
@magicalthinking @danielberkman
"Grok replaced wikipedia."
I only have the most dim awareness of 'grok' to what extent is this true? Are you just saying this... or are people really turning to this kind of tool more often?
-
@futurebird Wikipedia is trash anyway, it does not matter what happens to it.
I remember back in the early 2000's when Wikipedia warlords from the left were constantly editing out any mentions to human rights abuses in Venezuela, that alone convinced me that Wikipedia is just a gigantic opinion blog mascarading as an open encyclopedia."Wikipedia is just a gigantic opinion blog mascarading as an open encyclopedia"
Is there anything that doesn't have this flaw?
-
A group of Wikipedia editors have formed a group to address AI-generated content infiltrating the site.
(And I think Gillian makes a great point. What does it say exactly about the ... "value" of this new technology)
(Also she used the wrong "their" and I corrected it, because it was driving me nuts, that's why the word "they're" is in red.)
@futurebird Speaking of corrections, in the alt text, it says Al (as in short for Alan) instead of AI.
-
@futurebird Speaking of corrections, in the alt text, it says Al (as in short for Alan) instead of AI.
@KaraLG84 Thanks!
-
Wikipedia can only be as good as the people who make the time to invest in it.
When I started editing there I would add biographies of famous women in fashion. These were swiftly deleted even though they met the requirement of being mentioned in print media: the majority of editors had "never heard" of these people.
Meanwhile video game designers were meticulously documented.
But, with persistence I was able to make change.
@futurebird @danielberkman I remember someone saying to me once that (at least at some point in the past -- too afraid to check now) that the wikipediia article for "Klingon battle weapons" was like 10x longer than the history of woman's suffrage.
I say this as someone who is very appreciative for the wikipedia project, donates money to them, and spends lots of time reading articles on there. But yeah - - even before mass disinformation also a lot of biases amongst the editors...
