Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!

(90 seconds later)

We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about “AI” on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.

Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they’re still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I’m wrong about that or the “rules” aren’t enforced very strongly.

  • flaviat@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    So perhaps one alternative way to estimate their quality is to check the number of citations, many have more than 100 citations, which is a sign of quality

    Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper has 457 citations on PubMed