Average readers aren't the only ones tired of sorting through AI "work"— Wikipedia editors have had it, too.

In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.

Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia’s editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      Wikipedia is aweful for anything controversial, of which geopolitics is merely a good example.

      Probably fine for basic stuff like geology or the Napoleonic Wars or whatever.

    • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

      you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.

        • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          isn’t it accurate to say it’s preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.

          • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
            01·
            10 months ago

            further, I wouldn’t just remove the word preemptive if I thought this was really an issue. I’d go find a reliable source that would support a rewrite of the whole sentence or paragraph or section.

            then I would go to the talk page and I would let everybody know what I’m doing and why. and then I wouldn’t do it for 24 hours. and then I would make the edits and if anybody reverted it I would revert it back and then direct them to the talk page.