this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1671 points (98.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7658 readers
3826 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I've been an editor on Wikipedia for decades now. I've followed sources to clarify information, fix broken links, and remove inaccurate information. I know how it works.

It’s always worth a double check.

That's exactly my point. Wikipedia is transparent about where it gets its information. You can double-check citations, and if the citations don't exist or don't support a relevant claim, you can discard them (or edit them to flag that fact, or go above and beyond to provide a new source, if you're so willing.) With AI summaries, you can't do any of that. You're given a summation without automatic citations (or sometimes, with bogus made-up ones), and you can't do anything to correct any misinformation you encounter. Maybe you can report it, but you can't do anything in real time to prevent others from finding that same inaccurate information - not in the way that you can to immediately correct an inaccuracy on Wikipedia.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Same. But now this is a different topic.

For something like perplexity under brave where you're given inline citations, yeah, go follow them and get to an authoritative source faster.

We didn't start with "I can't submit an updated review if I find mistakes", we started at "there's another unnecessary layer of indirection". Which, sure, but it's hardly different than getting a start with a medium article of "best xxx of 2025" or, yes, a wikipedia page. It may not be to your taste, but I've had some occasions where it's convenient.