Wikipedia, the online nonprofit encyclopedia, laid out a simple plan to ensure its website continues to be supported in the AI era, despite its declining traffic.

  • Jimbo@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    In the age of AI slop that you can’t trust, Wikipedia use is going down??

    • Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      11 hours ago

      People think they can trust the slop, is the thing. If they even think so far ahead, they probably think that an answer that exists on wikipedia will just be provided by the AI, saving them the time to search for it themselves. I’ve heard more than one horror story of ChatGPT use in particular backfiring on someone who somehow legitimately thought it was just another form of search engine, and didn’t verify the information provided.

    • who@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Kind of funny: When Wikipedia was new, people often said that you couldn’t trust information on it because anyone could have written it, even if they were unqualified, biased, or deliberately deceptive. I guess that’s still true today, but with the advent of automated misinformation generators, the Wiki almost seems authoritative in comparison.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Can confirm, I’ve been a Wikipedia zealot the entire time and people really do seem to have accepted it. If you ignore what else makes them cheer, it’s a huge victory.

      • MurrayL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, when I was at school in the early 00s we were specifically banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source because it was seen as untrustworthy.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Which is ridiculous, everybody knows that the reason you should be banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source is because an encyclopedia is not a source

          • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Uh, it’s a tertiary source. It’s still a source, just not one you should be directly citing. They’re great for finding other sources though.