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.

  • anon987@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    Tom’s hardware should be blacklisted. After it was purchased by a company that has a partnership with Intel, the bias and corporate propaganda is terrible.

    • TheControlled@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ohhhh that’s why they have such a boner for Team Blue all the time. You just solved a mystery for me.

      A little while ago I read part of a review where the author goes on and on about this latest and greatest AMD processor and how shit it was because it was way too powerful and really you should just buy a Intel CPU that is way slower and just as expensive, if not more so. Because you don’t really need that much power do you? Or more money in your pocket? Give poor little indie developer Intel a try. I couldn’t continue reading.

      I was flabbergasted, yet impressed by the audacity of such a claim that has zero reasonable logic. Now it all makes sense.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            I remember hearing that when AMD surpassed Intel in multithreaded performance, userbenchmark adjusted they’re benchmark scoring to favor single threaded performance over multithreaded

          • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            They’re not useful for anything besides comparing individual parts with other parts of the same model. UBM heavily skews the results to favour Intel by heavily favouring single core performance over multicore performance, and they adjust it further if AMD dares perform better. It’s useless as an actual benchmarking site.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Future’s portfolio of brands included TechRadar, PC Gamer, Tom’s Guide, Tom’s Hardware, Marie Claire, GamesRadar+, All About Space, How it Works, CinemaBlend, Android Central, IT Pro and Windows Central.

      -Wikipedia

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Hate CinemaBlend. Just endless vapid Ai generated shit. Probably the same course for the rest.

    • galil3o@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I deleted their bookmark when that story about the KFC gaming console was plastered on the front page for days

    • deathbird@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not. Which makes this a particularly powerful indictment of a once-reputable mainstream news site.

      • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I would argue otherwise.

        Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.

        I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it’s rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.

        • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          So you know there is wrong information on wikipedia, but you still trust it as a primary source? That says a lot about you.

          • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Trust but verify my dude.

            What you’re saying is that you don’t trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 months ago

            Not a primary source. Also, every Wikipedia page posts the primary sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is just a compendium, it’s not a peer reviewed journal. Use some brain matter before it rots my dude.

          • Docus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s not considered a primary source. Nobody said it is. But it’s a good starting point for further research in most topics.

          • blurg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            This would be seriously useful, what are the impeccable primary sources?

        • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The problem with wikipedia is that people expect it to be neutral but on many topics it is far from that. It’s probably better to find a biased source where you know and account for the bias. Any “conservative” or “progressive” source where you know the bias is more reliable, at least you know which way they are leaning on all topics. And never trust a single source anyway.

          • frunch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I always thought the advantage with Wikipedia is that you can find sources for the info right there on their site. If there’s any doubt about the info on their site, it’s easy enough to vet the sources. I wouldn’t trust nearly any site without being able to at least do that anyway. At least in this case you can see where the info is coming from, and it’s not just “trust me bro”

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    With whom did CNET maintain a top tier reputation until 2020? It’s been a shell of itself for well over a decade at this point. That they’ve gone to full throated AI content seems to me the corpse standing up and shuffling around as a zombie.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    CNET lost my trust when they repacked software and drivers in their archive with a homebrew installer that bundled bloatware. Initially the bing search bar, then Opera, latest I remember was some antivirus solution. Sure, you can deselect them all, but I hate those business practices with a passion.

    • pdxfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, I mean prior to 2000 they were one of the trusted sources for software to be easily accessed and downloaded that was the up to date version. I would often learn about new features when installing what I downloaded from them because every piece of software didn’t have embedded auto update and publishers were often small and given the developing state of things, unknown.

  • milkjug@lemmy.wildfyre.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    I have not consciously clicked on any CNET content since the early 2000s. In my mind their content are mostly puff pieces without much substance. Are they even still relevant?

    • TheControlled@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Google doesn’t promote their pages until the middle or bottom of the search page which may as well be in the Mariana’s trench. That’s my anecdotal experience, anyway.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Good for Wikipedia. A lot of “AI generated” content is simply plagiarized from existing sources.

  • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wow. You know you dun goofed it when the “online encyclopedia anyone can edit” makes it very clear that “but not to write about you”.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    My friend used to work for CNET. She was laid off along with a decent amount of her coworkers years ago, maybe as much as 10+ IIRC, but yeah - they’ve been going downhill for awhile now and it seems to only be accelerating.

    It’s really a shame because they used to be such a trusted source. Enshittification marches on to a steady beat.

  • Eggyhead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    CNET: this parrot says a lot of things that seem accurate! Let’s have this parrot make articles for us!

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      even a source which is generally reliable can have its reliability questioned in any context. and a source that is generally unreliable for some reason or another can be considered reliable in some context.

        • deathbird@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                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.

                • Sybil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  if the source says preemptive, that’s going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.