4 ms·

They are not bragging about the bot. They are bragging about how great the dictionary is. There’s this subtle difference in the context.

by esjeon 3y ago

rvnx 3y ago
They are also the ones judging what is truth and neutrality. This is equivalent to saying: "A bot trained on the articles that we have written gives the answers that the writers of the articles expected"
- notyourwork 3y ago
  The old self-fulfilling prophecy.
- dmix 3y ago
  It's also largely going to be the sum of it's sources since most (contentious) arguments on Wikis come down to who can cite the most articles, assuming edits get challenged in the first place. Wikipedia maintains a list of 'reliable' news sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
  - Jorge1o1 3y ago
    Wow, what a list. Eye-opening really. The American Conservative (yellow) ==> The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. The New Republic (green) ==> There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. This seems like a somewhat arbitrary double standard to be applying. As a reader of both news sources they are both biased, opinionated sources, and I don't think you can trust one more than the other. But one is green with "be careful this might be biased" and the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      Wikileaks on zero retractions, and most anti-war news sources: red / black. Lest anyone think the problem is that Wikileaks is 'left biased'.
      - Jorge1o1 3y ago
        I think the biggest issue is not even the left/right or political bias of Wikipedia but rather the fact that some committee of wiki editors decide along what seem to be fairly arbitrary/subjective lines that some sources are reliable and others aren't. And then those claims make their way into Wikipedia where they inevitably (even though they shouldn't) are relied upon by students, politicians, journalists, who then perpetuate the claim. https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        wpietri 3y ago
        It's not a committee, it's not arbitrary, and "arbitrary" and "subjective" mean two very different things. Reliability from a fact-checking perspective is a pretty specific thing, and a thing that is vital to Wikipedia as an open-source, anyone-can-edit encyclopedia. This can correlate with political views in particular times and places, but does not broadly correlate with either left or right. E.g., after the Russian revolution, we saw the left using Pravda as a vehicle to "indoctrinate" and "encourage unity of thought". [1] But a significant part of the current US right has frequently taken the approach of "flooding the zone with shit" [2]. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+the+zone+with+shit https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+the+zone+with+shit
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        More like it's WASP establishment biased. Like the NYTimes.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
  - TZubiri 3y ago
    Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUTON_bias There's also some policy pages that talk about othet potential biases like technical biases. There is awareness
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  esjeon is simply wrong; this study is not touting the accuracy of wikipedia's knowledge. It's touting their bot's ability to accurately convey wikipedia's knowledge. It's very much about the qualities of their bot, not the qualities of wikipedia. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.14292.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.14292.pdf
  - lacksconfidence 3y ago
    It's both. My interpretation is that the study is as you say, but it's posted on the wikipedia signpost for the reasons esjeon says.
    - TZubiri 3y ago
      Wikimedia controls what goes in the signpost, they are very different from the actual community, and they are known for misrepresenting the intent of a project. When the Ukraine Russia war came out, they made a banner about a ukranian translation project that had existed for years and made it look like some project to support Ukraine, effectively breaking neutrality on the war subject (which was unrelated to the translation project.)
thunkshift1 3y ago
X doubt

They are not bragging about the bot. They are bragging about how great the dictionary is. There’s this subtle difference in the context.

by esjeon 3y ago

They are not bragging about the bot. They are bragging about how great the dictionary is. There’s this subtle difference in the context.

rvnx 3y ago

They are also the ones judging what is truth and neutrality. This is equivalent to saying: "A bot trained on the articles that we have written gives the answers that the writers of the articles expected"

notyourwork 3y ago
The old self-fulfilling prophecy.
dmix 3y ago
It's also largely going to be the sum of it's sources since most (contentious) arguments on Wikis come down to who can cite the most articles, assuming edits get challenged in the first place. Wikipedia maintains a list of 'reliable' news sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- Jorge1o1 3y ago
  Wow, what a list. Eye-opening really. The American Conservative (yellow) ==> The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. The New Republic (green) ==> There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. This seems like a somewhat arbitrary double standard to be applying. As a reader of both news sources they are both biased, opinionated sources, and I don't think you can trust one more than the other. But one is green with "be careful this might be biased" and the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Wikileaks on zero retractions, and most anti-war news sources: red / black. Lest anyone think the problem is that Wikileaks is 'left biased'.
    - Jorge1o1 3y ago
      I think the biggest issue is not even the left/right or political bias of Wikipedia but rather the fact that some committee of wiki editors decide along what seem to be fairly arbitrary/subjective lines that some sources are reliable and others aren't. And then those claims make their way into Wikipedia where they inevitably (even though they shouldn't) are relied upon by students, politicians, journalists, who then perpetuate the claim. https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - wpietri 3y ago
        It's not a committee, it's not arbitrary, and "arbitrary" and "subjective" mean two very different things. Reliability from a fact-checking perspective is a pretty specific thing, and a thing that is vital to Wikipedia as an open-source, anyone-can-edit encyclopedia. This can correlate with political views in particular times and places, but does not broadly correlate with either left or right. E.g., after the Russian revolution, we saw the left using Pravda as a vehicle to "indoctrinate" and "encourage unity of thought". [1] But a significant part of the current US right has frequently taken the approach of "flooding the zone with shit" [2]. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+the+zone+with+shit https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+the+zone+with+shit
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      More like it's WASP establishment biased. Like the NYTimes.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
- TZubiri 3y ago
  Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUTON_bias There's also some policy pages that talk about othet potential biases like technical biases. There is awareness
mcpackieh 3y ago
esjeon is simply wrong; this study is not touting the accuracy of wikipedia's knowledge. It's touting their bot's ability to accurately convey wikipedia's knowledge. It's very much about the qualities of their bot, not the qualities of wikipedia. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.14292.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.14292.pdf
- lacksconfidence 3y ago
  It's both. My interpretation is that the study is as you say, but it's posted on the wikipedia signpost for the reasons esjeon says.
  - TZubiri 3y ago
    Wikimedia controls what goes in the signpost, they are very different from the actual community, and they are known for misrepresenting the intent of a project. When the Ukraine Russia war came out, they made a banner about a ukranian translation project that had existed for years and made it look like some project to support Ukraine, effectively breaking neutrality on the war subject (which was unrelated to the translation project.)

thunkshift1 3y ago

X doubt