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.

  • who@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 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
      ·
      3 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
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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
          8
          ·
          7 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.