this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1688 readers
206 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
dgerard@awful.systems
50
Credulous coverage of AI slop on Wikipedia (awful.systems)
submitted 2 days ago by blakestacey@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!

(90 seconds later)

We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about "AI" on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.

Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they're still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I'm wrong about that or the "rules" aren't enforced very strongly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xgranade@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

acronym-spouting rules lawyers

That's pretty much the response I got offering even extremely mild dissent from AI spam. Apparently, "WP:MNA" means you can just make shit up as long as industry blog posts rely on that wild fever dream being true, for instance. Handy!

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

you realise i'm gonna ask for links to your example of this being misapplied here

[–] xgranade@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's deep in the replies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prompt_engineering#Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks as well for reinstating the NPOV template, really bothers me that it was unilaterally deleted without any addressing of the problem.

[–] flaviat@awful.systems 7 points 19 hours ago

So perhaps one alternative way to estimate their quality is to check the number of citations, many have more than 100 citations, which is a sign of quality

Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper has 457 citations on PubMed