Wikipedia downgrades CNET's reliability rating after AI-generated articles(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Wikipedia downgrades CNET's reliability rating after AI-generated articles
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/02/wikipedia-downgrades-cnets-reliability-rating-after-ai-generated-articles/
6 comments
> You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page.
Except deletion discussions are not votes. [0] Closing admins base their decision on the strength of the arguments presented, not on how many people voted one way or the other.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_sub...
Except deletion discussions are not votes. [0] Closing admins base their decision on the strength of the arguments presented, not on how many people voted one way or the other.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_sub...
If you know anything about their parent company this downgrade is warranted.
I'm quite happy that content farms are spewing out AI articles left and right, we might finally get to the point where regular people start to follow individual writers and editors instead of brands. They're only about to get away with this because it doesn't actually matter who writes the articles they are so boring and generic.
I'm sure there will soon be plenty of new individual writers for you to follow, like this one [0], or this one [1], or this one [2].
0: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
1: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
2: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
0: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
1: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
2: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
I have never seen that before. When it generates images that have people in the background they look HORRIBLY disfigured.
[deleted]
> CNET issued a statement that claims that the site maintains high editorial standards.
The "high" they're mentioning there must be the marijuana one (aka the editors are permanently stoned), rather than the generally accepted meaning of "high editorial standards".
The "high" they're mentioning there must be the marijuana one (aka the editors are permanently stoned), rather than the generally accepted meaning of "high editorial standards".
You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page. It is ridiculous. And it always seems to be Deletionists that show up.
So if 'the' Wikipedia downgrades CNET, it's probably anti-AI nuts with an axe to grind. I have little stock in this.