Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'
Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/oWcIr
tbh i somehow didnt even realize that wikipedia is one of the few super popular sites not trying to shove ai down my throat every 5 seconds
i'm grateful now
To all our readers on Lemmy,
Please don’t scroll past this. This Friday, for the 1st time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to support Wikipedia’s independence. Only 2% of our readers give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. If you donate just £2, or whatever you can this Friday, Wikipedia could keep thriving for years. We don't run ads, and we never have. We rely on our readers for support. We serve millions of people, but we run on a fraction of what other top sites spend. Wikipedia is special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to learn. We ask you, humbly: please don’t scroll away. If Wikipedia has given you £2 worth of knowledge this year, take a minute to donate. Show the world that access to neutral information matters to you. Thank you.
I will stop donating to Wikipedia if they use AI
What's funny is that for enormous big systems with network effects we are trying to use mechanisms intended for smaller businesses, like a hot dog kiosk.
IRL we have a thing for those, it's called democracy.
In the Internet it's either anarchy or monarchy, sometimes bureaucratic dictatorship, but in that area even Soviet-style collegial rule is something not yet present.
I'm recently read that McPherson article about Unix and racism, and how our whole perception of correct computing (modularity, encapsulation, object-orientation, all the KISS philosophy even) is based on that time's changes in the society and reaction to those. I mean, real world is continuous and you can quantize it into discrete elements in many ways. Some unfit for your task. All unfit for some task.
So - first, I like the Usenet model.
Second, cryptography is good.
Third, cryptographic ownership of a limited resource is ... fine, blockchains are maybe not so stupid. But not really necessary, because one can choose between a few versions of the same article retrieved, based on web of trust or whatever else. No need to have only one right version.
Fourth, we already have a way to turn sequence of interdependent actions into state information, it's called a filesystem.
Fifth, Unix with its hierarchies is really not the only thing in existence, there's BTRON, and even BeOS had a tagged filesystem.
Sixth, interop and transparency are possible with cryptography.
Seventh, all these also apply to a hypothetical service over global network.
Eighth, of course, is that the global network doesn't have to be globally visible\addressable to operate globally for spreading data, so even the Internet itself is not as much needed as the actual connectivity over which those change messages will propagate where needed and synchronize.
Ninth, for Wikipedia you don't need as much storage as for, say, Internet Archive.
And tenth - with all these one can make a Wikipedia-like decentralized system with democratic government, based on rather primitive principles, other than, of course, cryptography involved.
(Yes, Briar impressed me.)
EDIT: Oh, about democracy - I mean technical democracy. That an event (making any change) weren't valid if not processed correctly, by people eligible for signing it, for example, and they are made eligible by a signed appointment, and those signing it are made eligible by a democratic process (signed by majority of some body, signed in turn). That's that blockchain democracy people dreamed at some point. Maybe that's not a scam. Just haven't been done yet.
Not sure about Wikipedia, but Conservapedia would find it very useful. In fact, since most of their entries are factually incorrect and appear as fantasy I think AI writing articles would save them a lot of time.
Bonus: hallucinations can help create new conspiracy theories!
Wales’s quote isn’t nearly as bad as the byline makes it out to be:
Wales explains that the article was originally rejected several years ago, then someone tried to improve it, resubmitted it, and got the same exact template rejection again.
“It's a form letter response that might as well be ‘Computer says no’ (that article's worth a read if you don't know the expression),” Wales said. “It wasn't a computer who says no, but a human using AFCH, a helper script [...] In order to try to help, I personally felt at a loss. I am not sure what the rejection referred to specifically. So I fed the page to ChatGPT to ask for advice. And I got what seems to me to be pretty good. And so I'm wondering if we might start to think about how a tool like AFCH might be improved so that instead of a generic template, a new editor gets actual advice. It would be better, obviously, if we had lovingly crafted human responses to every situation like this, but we all know that the volunteers who are dealing with a high volume of various situations can't reasonably have time to do it. The templates are helpful - an AI-written note could be even more helpful.”
That being said, it still reeks of “CEO Speak.” And trying to find a place to shove AI in.
More NLP could absolutely be useful to Wikipedia, especially for flagging spam and malicious edits for human editors to review. This is an excellent task for dirt cheap, small and open models, where an error rate isn’t super important. Cost, volume, and reducing stress on precious human editors is. It's a existential issue that needs work.
…Using an expensive, proprietary API to give error prone yet “pretty good” sounding suggestions to new editors is not.
Wasting dev time trying to make it work is not.
This is the problem. Not natural language processing itself, but the seemingly contagious compulsion among executives to find some place to shove it when the technical extent of their knowledge is occasionally typing something into ChatGPT.
It’s okay for them to not really understand it.
It’s not okay to push it differently than other technology because “AI” is somehow super special and trendy.
That being said, it still wreaks of “CEO Speak.”
I think you mean reeks, which means to stink, having a foul odor.
Those homophones have reeked havoc for too long!
Waves hands "You didn't see anything."
Thank you. Glad to know I am not the only one that got triggered, lol.
This is another reason why I hate bubbles. There is something potentially useful in here. It needs to be considered very carefully. However, it gets to a point where everyone's kneejerk reaction is that it's bad.
I can't even say that people are wrong for feeling that way. The AI bubble has affected our economy and lives in a multitude of ways that go far beyond any reasonable use. I don't blame anyone for saying "everything under this is bad, period". The reasonable uses of it are so buried in shit that I don't expect people to even bother trying to reach into that muck to clean it off.
This bubble's hate is pretty front-loaded though.
Dotcom was, well, a useful thing. I guess valuations were nuts, but it looks like the hate was mostly in the enshittified aftermath that would come.
Crypto is a series of bubbles trying to prop up flavored pyramid schemes for a neat niche concept, but people largely figured that out after they popped. And it's not as attention grabbing as AI.
Machine Learning is a long running, useful field, but ever since ChatGPT caught investors eyes, the cart has felt so far ahead of the horse. The hate started, and got polarized, waaay before the bubble popping.
...In other words, AI hate almost feels more political than bubble fueled. If that makes any sense. It is a bubble, but the extreme hate would still be there even if it wasn't.
So... I actually proposed a use case for NLP and LLMs in 2017. I don't actually know if it was used.
But the usecase was generating large sets of fake data that looked real enough for performance testing enterprise sized data transformations. That way we could skip a large portion of the risk associated with using actual customer data. We wouldn't have to generate the data beforehand, we could validate logic with it, and we could just plop it in the replica non-prodiction environment.
At the time we didn't have any LLMs. So it didn't go anywhere. But it's always funny when I see all this "LLMs can do x" because I always think about how my proposal was to use it... For fake data.
That being said, it still wreaks of “CEO Speak.” And trying to find a place to shove AI in.
I don't see how this is "shoved in." Wales identified a situation where Wikipedia's existing non-AI process doesn't work well and then realized that adding AI assistance could improve it.
Neither did Wales. Hence, the next part of the article:
For example, the response suggested the article cite a source that isn’t included in the draft article, and rely on Harvard Business School press releases for other citations, despite Wikipedia policies explicitly defining press releases as non-independent sources that cannot help prove notability, a basic requirement for Wikipedia articles.
Editors also found that the ChatGPT-generated response Wales shared “has no idea what the difference between” some of these basic Wikipedia policies, like notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and properly representing minority and more widely held views on subjects in an article (WP:WEIGHT).
“Something to take into consideration is how newcomers will interpret those answers. If they believe the LLM advice accurately reflects our policies, and it is wrong/inaccurate even 5% of the time, they will learn a skewed version of our policies and might reproduce the unhelpful advice on other pages,” one editor said.
It doesn't mean the original process isn't problematic, or can't be helpfully augmented with some kind of LLM-generated supplement. But this is like a poster child of a troublesome AI implementation: where a general purpose LLM needs understanding of context it isn't presented (but the reader assumes it has), where hallucinations have knock-on effects, and where even the founder/CEO of Wikipedia seemingly missed such errors.
Don't mistake me for being blanket anti-AI, clearly it's a tool Wikipedia can use. But the scope has to be narrow, and the problem specific.
Adding AI assistance to any review process only ever worsens it, because instead of having to review one thing, now the reviewer has to review two things, one of which is defo hallucinated but it's hard to justify the "why", and the reviewer is also paid far less in exchange and has his entire worker class threatened.
He can also stick AI inside his own ass
jimmy wales is also the president and co-founder of fandom
to give you an idea of who that guy is
I mean, the Wikipedia page does say it was sold in 2018. Not sure how it was before but it's not surprising that it enshittified by now.
I guess in his defense it wasn't too bad before 2018, as far as I can remember. Most of the enshittification of fandom I can remember has happened since.
Obligatory plug for BreezeWiki. Makes that shit actually usable.
Christ, I miss when I could click on an article and not be asked to sign up for it.
Oh, right! Thanks for reminding me. I tried to archive it the last time but it took forever.
Edit. There ya' go: https://archive.is/oWcIr
You know, I remember way back in the day when…
#Interested in reading the rest of this comment?
Please sign up with your name, DOB, banking information, list of valuables, times you’re away from home, and an outline of your house key to “Yaztromo@lemmy.world”. It’s quick, easy, and fun!
…and that’s why I’m no longer welcome in New Zealand. Crazy!
As I have adblock mostly because of the abuse of trackers, I understand people trying to monetize their work.
Journalists monetizing their work is totally reasonable. The problem for me is that it seems unfair to ask that literally everyone trying to read an article have to sign up. Maybe I’m missing something.
Important context: he’s not suggesting AIs writing content for Wikipedia. He’s suggesting using AI to provide feedback for new editors. Take that how you will.
Right, which makes it just as bad. Wikipedia had enough proofreaders. You don't need AI for that, because the need is already filled.
This is entirely different from a book writer who is going everything solo and has exactly one publishing window.
And writing feedback software has existed for decades. So AI adds nothing new. Again it is snake oil. It is always snake oil. Except when it's bait and switch, to pretend it wasn't snake oil in the first place.
So I fed the page to ChatGPT to ask for advice. And I got what seems to me to be pretty good. And so I'm wondering if we might start to think about how a tool like AFCH might be improved so that instead of a generic template, a new editor gets actual advice. It would be better, obviously, if we had lovingly crafted human responses to every situation like this, but we all know that the volunteers who are dealing with a high volume of various situations can't reasonably have time to do it. The templates are helpful - an AI-written note could be even more helpful.
This actually sounds like a plausibly decent use for an LLM. Initial revision to take some of the load off from the human review process isn't a bad idea - he isn't advocating for AI to write articles, just that it can be useful for copy-editing and potentially supplement a system already heavy in Go/No Go evaluations.
Which is weird, really. Jimmy Wales is just fucking awful. I didn't realize he was anatomically capable of not talking out of his ass.
Fuck AI
He is nobody to Wikipedia now. He also failed to create a news site and a micro SNS.
Remember you can download all of Wikipedia in your language and safely store it on a drive buried in your backyard, for after they rewrite history and eliminate freedom of speech.
Already got it downloaded. It's only like 100 - 150 gigabytes or something like that. Got it on my PC, my laptop, and my external hard drive. I don't trust the powers that be to keep it intact anymore so I'd rather have my own copy, even if outdated.
By downloading it every month and seeding its torrent (totally legal!), you are also helping to keep Wikimedia accountable by providing competition.
Some people can't really stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.
if jimmy wales puts ai in wikipedia i stg imma scream
The editor community rejected the idea so overwhelmingly, that Wikipedia paused the planned experiment in June, hopefully for good.
Honestly, translating the good articles from other languages would improve Wikipedia immensely.
For example, the Nanjing dialect article is pretty bare in English and very detailed in Mandarin
You can do that, that's fine. As long as you can verify it is an accurate translation, so you need to know the subject matter and the target language.
But you could probably also have used Google translate and then just fine tune the output yourself. Anyone could have done that at any point in the last 10 years.
Google translate is horrendously bad at Korean, especially with slang and accidental typos. Like nonsense bad.
As long as you can verify it is an accurate translation
Unless the process has changed in the last decade, article translations are a multi-step process, which includes translators and proof-readers. It's easier to get volunteer proof-readers than volunteer translators. Adding AI for the translation step, but keeping the proof-reading step should be a great help.
But you could probably also have used Google translate and then just fine tune the output yourself. Anyone could have done that at any point in the last 10 years.
Have you ever used Google translate? Putting an entire Wikipedia article through it and then "fine tuning" it would be more work than translating it from scratch. Absolutely no comparison between Google translate and AI translations.
I recently have edited a small wiki page that was obviously written by someone that wasn’t proficient in English. I used AI to just reword what was already written and then I edited the output myself. It did a pretty good job. It was a page about some B-list Indonesian actress that I just stumbled upon and I didn’t want to put time and effort into it but the page really needed work done.
This is the goal of Abstract Wikipedia. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
Wikipedia's translation tool for porting articles between languages currently uses google translate so I could see an LLM being an improvement but LLMs are also way way costlier than normal translation models like google translate. Would it be worth it? And also would the better LLM translations make editors less likely to reword the translation to make it's tone better?
You can use an LLM to reword the translation to make the tone better. It's literally what LLMs are designed to do
The problem with LLMs and other generative AI is that they're not completely useless. People's jobs are on the line much of the time, so it would really help if they were completely useless, but they're not. Generative AI is certainly not as good as its proponents claim, and critically, when it fucks up, it can be extremely hard for a human to tell, which eats away a lot of their benefits, but they're not completely useless. For the most basic example, give an LLM a block of text and ask it how to improve grammar or to make a point clearer, and then compare the AI generated result with the original, and take whatever parts you think the AI improved.
Everybody knows this, but we're all pretending it's not the case because we're caring people who don't want the world to be drowned in AI hallucinations, we don't want to have the world taken over by confidence tricksters who just fake everything with AI, and we don't want people to lose their jobs. But sometimes, we are so busy pretending that AI is completely useless that we forget that it actually isn't completely useless. The reason they're so dangerous is that they're not completely useless.
It’s almost as if nuance and context matters.
How much energy does a human use to write a Wikipedia article? Now also measure the accuracy and completeness of the article.
Now do the same for AI.
Objective metrics are what is missing, because much of what we hear is “phd-level inference” and it’s still just a statistical, probabilistic generator.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/with-gpt-5-openai-promises-access-to-phd-level-ai-expertise
It is completely useless as presented by the major players who atrocities trying to jam models that are trying to everything at the same time and that is what we always talk about when discussing AI.
We aren't talking about focused implementations that are Wikipedia to a certain set of data or designed for specific purposes. That is why we don't need nuance, although the reminder that we aren't talking about smaller scale AI used by humans as tools is nice once in a while.
They're trying to get rid of Wikipedia by saying they're shit and doing things you'll hate. Fight for no AI if that's your thing, but read very carefully what's happening. Wikipedia can NOT go away.
Sit down Jimmy. Wikipedia has enough problems already, it doesn't need more to be added by AI.
Only if used appropriately and in a safe manner.
Like a summary of article, translations etc
And definitely always highlighting what was generated by the AI
ok jimmy boy, will that ai also beg for donations? /s
WikipedAI
"Editors" are not a unified block. I would be fine with it, depending on how it's used.
Why would anyone want an editor that doesn’t fact check?