Average readers aren't the only ones tired of sorting through AI "work"— Wikipedia editors have had it, too.

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.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Wikipedia is awful for information on geopolitics or any subjective history. People think that they are reading “objective information” but in reality they are reading propaganda

    They’ve been doing this for more than 13 years: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

    Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

    Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in “Zionist editing” for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

    Take the page on Israel, for a start: “The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria,” said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      1·
      4 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.