3 ms·

Contrarian take: Wikipedia could use more AI, as well as less. A major flaw of Wikipedia is that much of it is simply poorly written. Repetition and redundancy

Contrarian take: Wikipedia could use more AI, as well as less. A major flaw of Wikipedia is that much of it is simply poorly written. Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. That should not be surprising. Writing clear prose is a skill that most people do not have, and Wikipedia articles are generally the fruit of collaboration without copy editors. AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I came away convinced that AI could have done as good a job - with supervision, of course - in a fraction of the time. AI-assisted copy-editing is not against Wikipedia rules. Yet as things stand, there are no built-in tools to facilitate it, doubtless because of the ambient suspicion of AI as a technology. We need to take a smarter approach.

OsrsNeedsf2P 9mo ago
Strongly disagree. At least on English Wikipedia, articles tend to be high quality, and it's AI - not Wikipedia - that has repetition and redundancy.
- tonymet 9mo ago
  AI isn’t one thing. The consumer AI bots (e.g. ChatGPT) are heavily dumbed down. Asking it a Wikipedia topic without prompting will of course produce low quality content. With a good model , fine tuning & supervision AI can produce stellar content. AI is at least a thousand tools. It’s a mistake to write it off so trivially.
oasisbob 9mo ago
> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I'm confused by this. Is this written by an AI? > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. This pile of words is missing a verb. "You" (whoever that is, human or not) edited a single article, and that experience convinced you that "AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem"? Ironically, the lack of evidence to support such a strong assertion is one of the key problems with AI writing in general. The idea that you could edit an article extensively without adding or subtracting information is facile. I would love to see this edit.
- ragazzina 9mo ago
  > This pile of words is missing a verb. And yet is completely understandable.
  - oasisbob 9mo ago
    And also entirely ironic. > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. Repetition AND redundancy? Illogical ordering in an unordered list of things. Rambling (could be more items or less). What's the grammar of a sentence like this? Diagramming it would be a challenge. I'd call that opaque.
- bluebarbet 9mo ago
  Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
  - oasisbob 9mo ago
    Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
    - bluebarbet 9mo ago
      It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove. Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned. The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.

OsrsNeedsf2P 9mo ago

Strongly disagree. At least on English Wikipedia, articles tend to be high quality, and it's AI - not Wikipedia - that has repetition and redundancy.

tonymet 9mo ago
AI isn’t one thing. The consumer AI bots (e.g. ChatGPT) are heavily dumbed down. Asking it a Wikipedia topic without prompting will of course produce low quality content. With a good model , fine tuning & supervision AI can produce stellar content. AI is at least a thousand tools. It’s a mistake to write it off so trivially.

oasisbob 9mo ago

> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I'm confused by this. Is this written by an AI? > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. This pile of words is missing a verb. "You" (whoever that is, human or not) edited a single article, and that experience convinced you that "AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem"? Ironically, the lack of evidence to support such a strong assertion is one of the key problems with AI writing in general. The idea that you could edit an article extensively without adding or subtracting information is facile. I would love to see this edit.

ragazzina 9mo ago
> This pile of words is missing a verb. And yet is completely understandable.
- oasisbob 9mo ago
  And also entirely ironic. > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. Repetition AND redundancy? Illogical ordering in an unordered list of things. Rambling (could be more items or less). What's the grammar of a sentence like this? Diagramming it would be a challenge. I'd call that opaque.
bluebarbet 9mo ago
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
- oasisbob 9mo ago
  Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
  - bluebarbet 9mo ago
    It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove. Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned. The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.