5 ms·

No, citations are supposed to be from reliable secondary sources or authoritative primary ones external to Wikipedia

• josefx 2y ago
  Many of those sources are not available online (books), point at paywals (research papers) or are dead . Unless you have an API that can bypass these issues reliable you are stuck with a tool that has already landed several lawyers in hot water for making up citations on the fly.
  • falcor84 2y ago
    The Wikipedia Library project [0] grants active editors access to a wide range of otherwise paywalled sources. I wonder if it could not be extended to this sort of bot. [0] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/ https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-...
    • eastbound 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • 6510 2y ago
        With similar topic like that it is very obvious but if you compare different topics some cant get enough articles while others must be merged and reduced to a stub. The best examples I know of is to have the entire discography with each album and each song their own article vs anything (historically significant) covered in skeptic wiki where no amount of sources is enough for a single article. More interesting, there must be literal miles of senseless discussion about this if what you describe came out of it.
      • AlienRobot 2y ago
        What other, more honest endeavors are you talking about? It's very easy to attack others when you don't need to defend yourself. I want to see you say these things when you have an alternative with its own share of problems.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ysavir 2y ago
  What LLM will we check those against? How do we trust that its source materials are accurate and correct?
  • shiomiru 2y ago
    I think the idea is that you feed the LLM the article & the source material (from citations) and it checks if they match up.
    • ysavir 2y ago
      Sure, but what happens when the article is updated at a later date, or rescinded, etc.? Should the LLMs be trained to repeat the article verbatim, or to say "according to this article[0], blah blah blah" with links to the sources? Wikipedia works because we can update it in real time in response to changes. LLMs that need to constantly recrawl every time a page on the internet is updated, and that properly contextualize the content of that page, is a huge ask. Because at that point, it stops being an LLM and starts being a very energy-hungry search engine.
      • shiomiru 2y ago
        Well, it's just a bot, so no need for it to instantly react to any and every update. I also have my doubts on whether it is possible to implement efficiently (or at all). I suspect that just yanking in the article and all the sources is non-feasible, and any smaller chunking would be missing too much context. Plus LLM logical capabilities are questionable too, so I don't know how well the comparison would work...