AI Summary is in our search engines these days, and I think it is appropriate to say that the response has taken place various to date. The Wikipedia Editor Community, however, has taken a strong stance on the recently proposed use by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is to add AI-a summary to the top of the Vicky articles, which has now been prevented for the test.
The editor of Wikipedia said, “It will do immediate and irreversible damage to our readers and as a reliable and serious source as our reputation” Cramastura (Through 404 media“Wikipedia has become a boyword for sobber boringness in some ways, which is excellent.”
“Let’s not insult the intelligence of our readers and join the stampede to roll stampede AI summs. Which are these, although the word ‘machine-generated’ is used here.”
Comments came in response to one Wikipedia Village Pump Declaration From the WMF web team, informing the editors that there was a discussion about the presentation of “machine-made, but editor-moderate, simple summary for readers”.
The proposals had a two-week used use on the mobile website, in which 10% of users would be given the opportunity to choose a pre-borne summary option on a set of articles, before the experiment will be stopped and used to collect data on the response.
To be fair, it sounds like a very temporary step in the AI ​​summary test on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, but the response was mostly negative. Many editors commented on “Yak” for the proposal, one called it “Really terrible thoughts.” However, some thought more positive attitude:
“I am glad that WMF is thinking about a solution to an important problem on Wikipedia: most of our technical articles are very difficult”, User writes femke“Perhaps we can use it as an inspiration to write a suitable article for our comprehensive audience.”
The announcement seems to be a continuity of the WMF proposal earlier this year to integrate AI in the complex ecosystem of Wikipedia. In May WMF announced that it was Implement a strategy Product infrastructure and research to develop AI in “direct service of editors”, host and use, which seems to have been obtained by the community Degree of uniform degree.
Speaking to 404 media, the Wikimedia Foundation Manager said: “Reading through comments, it is clear that we can do better than presenting the idea”, before confirming that the test is drawn while it evaluates the reaction.
For those who are familiar with the complex debate that appears to follow the scenes The most straight Wikipedia articleAll this internal discussion is probably not surprising. Wikipedia has also worked on a vibrant discourse and editor debate about the smallest details of its pages, and has become one of the primary sources of the Internet over the years – it has been said to get more than the English version 4,000 page views every second,
Yes, I discussed Wikipedia data from Wikipedia page on Wikipedia. How is it that for a fractal of dubiosity?
When I was a child, I was discouraged from using Wikipedia as a reference in my studies, as it was considered untrue in the early 2000s due to dependence on crowds.
However, although it is probably the best that you quote it as a reliable source in your college essays, this perception has changed in those years – with strict moderation (and Strict guidelines) To help cement your reputation as one of the more reliable information outlets on the Internet.
It is being said, in a world where many sources depend on Rapid affected by the rise of AI-related materialI wonder that even before this stallwart of the Internet reference, it would be longer for some of the modern AIs – many of its editors (and those of us who use it on daily) rather it was not done.
