A nice thing is that the AI I've been using (mostly ChatGPT) seems to understand well how Wikipedia works, and often displays a kind of veneration for our work (it knows where it gets their stuff), often open and shamelessly displays Wikipedia as "source" and in general shows us in a very positive light to whoever asks. I believe it may have a positive effect in outreach and engagement.
Paulo Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> escreveu (terça, 15/10/2024 à(s) 11:44): > Kaya > > AI doesnt excel in anything, it can only be a copy of the sources it uses, > that does include Wikipedia regardless of which language project it is. > > Our benefit is being "neutral" in both how we write and what we write > about, like Paulo just said its fun to dig into various topics including > controversial stuff. Science can be as if more controversial than people, > politics, or religion but our goal is to "Share the sum of all knowledge" > to do less is a disservice to those seeking genuine unbias content. > > I'd much prefer a world where Wikipedia is the only source, but if AI is > going to exist and what we do makes it regurgitate better information then > that's good. > > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 18:08, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> > wrote: > >> We often write, somewhat stressed, that AI is a threat to us and that >> the accusation us having a bias in our articles hurts our credibility. >> >> I think we should look at our reality with another view. We have by now >> a huge number of very good articles on entities being typical >> encyclopedian, like oxygen or Stockholm. AI will not create better >> articles and no one calls them biased. And we have a huge number of very >> dull articles, like all the lakes in Canada, where AI can not produce >> anything as good, and no one calls them biased. >> >> For the one called biased I have found they represent about 0,01% of >> all, and when I talk with readers, they anyway say they do not trust >> Wikipedia (based on the subject, not the actual content) on these >> entries and the proportion of readers finding fact on these things in >> Wikipedia compared with other sources are l relative low (specially >> compared with the typical encyclopedian entries). Why do we spend so >> much energy on these few articles that anyway gives us very little or >> no/negative credit? I half seriously on my home wiki is trying to launch >> the concept of the "dull Wikipedia". Where we write very short articles, >> with only dull basics, of these controversial subjects and also avoid >> the juicy content of of individuals even if it takes a lot of volume in >> media. >> >> Why not concentrate and be proud of the thing we are best in. >> Noncontroversial standard encyclodedan entries, including marginal >> subjects? And leave the controversial subjects to the media, and the >> subjects where AI excels in to that realm? And forget concept like >> click rate. And be proud to the good we are doing >> >> Anders >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MT57HKN7XSYLGGQFQYJUGOQE2AFJDW7N/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > -- > Boodarwun > Gnangarra > 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar' > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MXBQIUN35OPANXGS6USRKCY6WRAOKS24/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ISR5QM53ZWYJHYVKKZY72BNSDTD5IXTM/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
