Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

blog.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#41

Post by DanBC »

tptacek wrote: post #11
cowardlydragon wrote: post #10

As referenced in the article, what is "good" and "bad" is dependent on perspective. Wikipedia has several perspectives just within the colloquial / perceived mission. Is it for academic integrity? For common education? For the rich and powerful? For the everyman? To record as much as possible? To cull the best knowledge from the stream? Is it for progressive ideals, which may be opposed by the common majority? Or doe…

"Good" simply means "unlikely to be reverted". The objective is to save time for editors.

I feel sorry for the AI when it runs into the n-dash, m-dash, hyphen, and minus wars.

Here's one example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(poli...

About 15,000 words and closed wit no consensus.

Here there's hundreds of thousands of words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=dash&pre...

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#42

Post by benten10 »

exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

Alright buddy, I don't want to get in a flame war here, but I'll summarize my arguments in short.

A hits B. Hard. When B tries fighting back, A suggests the world should be a fair place, and really, he doesn't support violence at all, and there should be global peace.

C turns D's family into indentured servants. When D becomes a part of a revolution, and tries to make sure no one from C's (or D's) side can do it again, C says "I'm all for equality yo, lets not be violent at each other".

F's people are particularly unfairly attacked by different members of G groups, which are in power in their country. A lot of F's die unfairly and prematurely, and are mistreated for no reason. When F's people say "our lives matter, be kinder to us", some people who are in G's side say: "hey F, ALL lives matter."

People called G's are unfairly discriminated against, overtly and covertly, but often very openly. They are called names, and their presence in public is often made very difficult, by people called H. So when G's get together and try to get this G-rights going, some H's say: "Hey, there should be equality. You shouldn't get special priviledges. If you are systematically prejudiced against, your bad, there should be equality okay". Lets call them HRA's. You are HRA, exo762.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#43

Post by sparkzilla »

exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

Ironic, given that Wikipedia is one of the least female friendly sites on the net, with around 10% female contributors, who are constantly harassed. As well as the systemic bias against topics regarding women.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#44

Post by sparkzilla »

tptacek wrote: post #11
cowardlydragon wrote: post #10

As referenced in the article, what is "good" and "bad" is dependent on perspective. Wikipedia has several perspectives just within the colloquial / perceived mission. Is it for academic integrity? For common education? For the rich and powerful? For the everyman? To record as much as possible? To cull the best knowledge from the stream? Is it for progressive ideals, which may be opposed by the common majority? Or doe…

"Good" simply means "unlikely to be reverted". The objective is to save time for editors.

"Good" on Wikipedia means the opinion of the most powerful group of editors on the page.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#45

Post by Coding_Cat »

titanomachy wrote: post #37
kuschku wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Wikipedia at least has humans working on it, who can catch issues and improve it. It can’t be worse than YouTube/Google’s systems anyway.

I don't see that many bot-generated comments anymore on YouTube. The genuine user-generated comments are among the lowest-quality on any site that I frequent, but I suspect there isn't much that Google can do about that.

I see plenty, all following a very simple formula & mostly spoofing the original uploader. And those comments stay around for quite a while. They really need to improve the system. Not that there is much value in the YT comments, as you say, I just think it reflects badly on Google that they can't keep these comments out.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#46

Post by lallysingh »

benten10 wrote: post #42
exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

Alright buddy, I don't want to get in a flame war here, but I'll summarize my arguments in short. A hits B. Hard. When B tries fighting back, A suggests the world should be a fair place, and really, he doesn't support violence at all, and there should be global peace. C turns D's family into indentured servants. When D becomes a part of a revolution, and tries to make sure no one from C's (or D's) side can do it agai…

That's lovely, thank you. Upvoted.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#47

Post by [deleted] »

benten10 wrote: post #42
exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

Alright buddy, I don't want to get in a flame war here, but I'll summarize my arguments in short. A hits B. Hard. When B tries fighting back, A suggests the world should be a fair place, and really, he doesn't support violence at all, and there should be global peace. C turns D's family into indentured servants. When D becomes a part of a revolution, and tries to make sure no one from C's (or D's) side can do it agai…

[deleted]

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#48

Post by data_scientist »

garblegarble wrote: post #2

I can't help but wonder if this will have the side-effect that vandalism will become a more subtle subversion of the pages (or maybe there's already a number of people who do just that and this will thin out the field to make them more obvious)

Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/810/

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#49

Post by flashman »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #8
bglazer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the "feminist inspiration" part is a confusing non-sequitur. I think you're missing what they're trying to say, though. I interpreted that section as "we're making our algorithms and data open so that everyone can be sure they aren't implicitly racist or sexist". Suppose, for example, that a user repeatedly rejected edits for anyone with a noticeably feminine username. Wikimedia wants to be sure that their al…

Attempting to have processes that aren't implicity racist or sexist is a feminist practice?! If that doesn't qualify as an implicitly sexist statement I wouldn't know what would.

Yes, excising discrimination from processes is a feminist practice. That's not sexist, because feminism is about subtracting, not adding, discrimination based on gender.

Re: AI service gives Wikipedians ‘X-ray specs’ to see through bad edits

#50

Post by seivan »

exo762 wrote: post #4

This is very peculiar. New tool is introduced, which joins a set of existing tools (bots) which address the same problem. Some comparison of quality and robustness is expected. Instead author gives us some insight into his/hers source of inspiration: > A feminist inspiration > “Please exercise extreme caution to avoid encoding racism or other biases into an AI scheme.” > Wnt (from The Signpost) And few lines below we…

"Feminist Inspiration". Like straight out of South Park.

Basically I am counting this as anything remotely critical of any subject that the "good guys" have decided is flawless will be censored. https://twitter.com/keksec_org/status/672447312044650496

Maybe it's too cynical as it might just pandering to a bunch of Fratboys... PC-Fratboys.

Post reply on HN