- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Wikipedia has a new initiative called WikiProject AI Cleanup. It is a task force of volunteers currently combing through Wikipedia articles, editing or removing false information that appears to have been posted by people using generative AI.
i dunno, critical support in their protracted ai war against Natopedia i guess?
edit. fun fact, back when I was in school you werent allowed to use wikipedia as a source, because everyone knew it was filled with shit, just like it still is.
Your dumb ass probably wouldnt even know what NATO is without Wikipedia.
Just block hexbear and save yourself some stress.
Nah i think its good to see. I wouldnt wanna walk around with glasses that filter out anyone wearing nazi symbols or something like that.
Mummy and daddy not paying you enough attention again?
People didn’t allow you to use it as a source in school because those rules were made by people that just didn’t understand technology.
As for it now being filled with shit, that’s just ignorant. It’s not like they accept edits and publish them from anybody that submits one, they’re reviewed and stuff that is well known or not up for debate is as accurate as can be.
How does it differ from Encarta 98 which we used in school? Or any encyclopaedia?
As an editor, Wikipedia is a good source, but you should not be citing it. Cite what Wikipedia cites.
Pending changes (the review you mean) is a form of protection placed on vandalized pages. Most vandalism is reverted by editors who patrol the recent changes.
Wikipedia has some good pages and some horrifically bad pages, we all know the one where some american teen made all the scots pages even though he literally didn’t speak a word of scots but there’s tons of other pages that are questionable at best and wrong at worst. The main contributors after decades are still like 80% men and most of them are in a STEM field which again shows in pages that go outside of that narrow niche. I at one point edited some wiki pages myself and you’ll literally have some guy do a fucking edit war because he thinks Somatotypes are real and you have to fight for months because you don’t have the clout of a math nerd.
And this isn’t even looking at the serious Nazi problem wiki has.
Wikipedia had decades to get their act together, they didn’t I doubt they will anytime in the future because of how their whole shitty system works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Æo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asilvering was just made an admin last month.
It wasnt allowed to be used in school because everyone can edit, and thus the sources can be “It came to me in a dream.”
All encyclopedias can be bad if you cannot recognize the bias that is inherit in everything that was made to contain knowledge. Natopedia is filled with liberal freaks sitting on their little pages like their personal fiefdoms they do not allow edits, no matter how western your source is, and use sources by historians widely disparaged or they leave things out to form a narrative that suits them.
from here
Thus, she removed the nonsense. Please read the source that you are quoting.
lmao
Good guess probably nato enemies comitting war crimes by attacking civil Infrastructur