Average readers aren't the only ones tired of sorting through AI "work"— Wikipedia editors have had it, too.

In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.

Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia’s editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
          16·
          8 months ago

          Wikipedia’s pay distribution is actually quite even. The C suite make much, much less than other companies. While I havent been able to confirm this, one article said they hold larger than usual sums of money, likely to pay salaries off interest, and look to donations for replenishment.

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      73·
      8 months ago

      It’s not. Which makes this a particularly powerful indictment of a once-reputable mainstream news site.

      • Wolf_359@lemmy.worldEnglish
        372·
        8 months ago

        I would argue otherwise.

        Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.

        I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it’s rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.

          • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
            302·
            8 months ago

            Trust but verify my dude.

            What you’re saying is that you don’t trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
            111·
            8 months ago

            Not a primary source. Also, every Wikipedia page posts the primary sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is just a compendium, it’s not a peer reviewed journal. Use some brain matter before it rots my dude.

          • Docus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            91·
            8 months ago

            It’s not considered a primary source. Nobody said it is. But it’s a good starting point for further research in most topics.

          • frunch@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            I always thought the advantage with Wikipedia is that you can find sources for the info right there on their site. If there’s any doubt about the info on their site, it’s easy enough to vet the sources. I wouldn’t trust nearly any site without being able to at least do that anyway. At least in this case you can see where the info is coming from, and it’s not just “trust me bro”