3 ms·

See https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ (Citogenesis) for what I think is the biggest problem with a source that publishes AI-generated articles. Wikip

by GuB-42 3y ago

See https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ (Citogenesis) for what I think is the biggest problem with a source that publishes AI-generated articles. Wikipedia is supposed to use primary sources, AI generated articles, by nature, can't be primary sources. In particular, AIs love to use Wikipedia in their training dataset: it is a free, high quality source of information, but it is not flawless either. So there is a good chance that if Wikipedia cites an AI generated article, it has Wikipedia as its source, starting the "citogenesis" process.

shh2112 3y ago
Slight nitpick, while Wikipedia allows primary sources in some cases, it generally prefers secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#:~:text=A%20primary%20source%20may%20be,but%20without%20further%2C%20specialized%20knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research....
- jMyles 3y ago
  That's more than a slight nitpick - it corrects a core misunderstanding to be found everywhere this discussion seems to be happening. To wit: AI articles are to be found along a dramatic spectrum of quality. If such an article is high-quality, relevant to the subject matter, asserts the fact in question, and makes proper and veracious use of a primary source in support of such an assertion, why isn't it a reasonable source for an encyclopedia? I can imagine a future with rich educational materials with these layers: * raw experimental data -=> * publication ("primary" source) -=> * AI-generated review of many publications ("secondary" source) -=> * Human-authored encyclopedia article (with one or two people following the fact pattern all the way back down to the data, and many more people helping to synthesize the higher layers into a rich, readable, considerate, diverse synopsis)
easton 3y ago
I thought Wikipedia loved secondary sources? Like articles about something, as opposed to a primary source which would be like a person who was present or something (which would mean it’s original research). An article that says Abraham Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation would be preferred to Abraham Lincoln himself being asked and then the Wikipedia article citing “my interview with Abe”. (Your general point is valid, I’m just confused about the terminology)
- retrac 3y ago
  In the historical sense, a primary source comes from the time period under study. A secondary source is later, and interprets, or records, later impressions/recollections of the period in question. So for example, a newspaper article from the 1890s is a primary source about the late 19th century, even if the author had no direct knowledge of the topic about which they were writing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by GuB-42 3y ago

shh2112 3y ago

Slight nitpick, while Wikipedia allows primary sources in some cases, it generally prefers secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#:~:text=A%20primary%20source%20may%20be,but%20without%20further%2C%20specialized%20knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research....

jMyles 3y ago
That's more than a slight nitpick - it corrects a core misunderstanding to be found everywhere this discussion seems to be happening. To wit: AI articles are to be found along a dramatic spectrum of quality. If such an article is high-quality, relevant to the subject matter, asserts the fact in question, and makes proper and veracious use of a primary source in support of such an assertion, why isn't it a reasonable source for an encyclopedia? I can imagine a future with rich educational materials with these layers: * raw experimental data -=> * publication ("primary" source) -=> * AI-generated review of many publications ("secondary" source) -=> * Human-authored encyclopedia article (with one or two people following the fact pattern all the way back down to the data, and many more people helping to synthesize the higher layers into a rich, readable, considerate, diverse synopsis)

easton 3y ago

I thought Wikipedia loved secondary sources? Like articles about something, as opposed to a primary source which would be like a person who was present or something (which would mean it’s original research). An article that says Abraham Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation would be preferred to Abraham Lincoln himself being asked and then the Wikipedia article citing “my interview with Abe”. (Your general point is valid, I’m just confused about the terminology)

retrac 3y ago
In the historical sense, a primary source comes from the time period under study. A secondary source is later, and interprets, or records, later impressions/recollections of the period in question. So for example, a newspaper article from the 1890s is a primary source about the late 19th century, even if the author had no direct knowledge of the topic about which they were writing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]