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

Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

wikiedu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 132 posts

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#41

Post by chr15m »

crabmusket wrote: post #16
crazygringo wrote: post #12

> That means the article contained a plausible-sounding sentence, cited to a real, relevant-sounding source. But when you read the source it’s cited to, the information on Wikipedia does not exist in that specific source. When a claim fails verification, it’s impossible to tell whether the information is true or not. This has been a rampant problem on Wikipedia always. I can't seem to find any indicator that this has…

There was a fun example of this that happened live during a recent episode of the Changelog[1]. The hosts noted that they were incorrectly described as being "from GitHub" with a link to an episode of their podcast which didn't substantiate that claim. Their guest fixed the citation as they recorded[2]. [1]: https://changelog.com/podcast/668#transcript-265 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugen_Rochko&…

How did they know it was not LLM generated?

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#42

Post by DrewADesign »

EA-3167 wrote: post #40
chr15m wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can add unsubstantiated conclusions at a far higher rate than humans working without LLMs.

At some point you're forced to either believe that people have never heard of the concept of a force multiplier, or to return to Upton Sinclair's observation about getting people to believe in things that hurt their bottom line.

I don’t see why people keep blaming cars for road safety problems; people got into buggy crashes for centuries before automobiles even existed

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#43

Post by chr15m »

gwern wrote: post #35
asyncadventure wrote: post #24

[dead]

Thanks for the LLM comment, but that's dumb. If the problem really was as bad with humans (it obviously is not), then OP wouldn't've happened: > For most of the articles Pangram flagged as written by GenAI, nearly every cited sentence in the article failed verification.

Agree. I'm curious about the human contribution baseline.

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#44

Post by nl »

ktzar wrote: post #11
simianwords wrote: post #7

I find it very interesting that the main competitor to Wikipedia which is Grokipedia is taking a 180 degree approach being AI first.

Didn't know about Grokipedia, I've just opened an article in it about Spain, scrolled to a random paragraph, and the information in it is plain wrong: From https://grokipedia.com/page/Spain#terrain-and-landforms > Spain's peninsular terrain is dominated by the Meseta Central, a vast interior plateau covering about two-thirds of the country's land area, with elevations ranging from 610 to 760 meters and averaging arou…

I'm not an expert on the geography of Spain, and it's rare that I'd defend Grokipedia but in this case I think it is correct.

Meseta Central mean central tableland. Segovia is on the edge of the mountain range that surrounds that tableland, but often referred to as part of it. This is fuzzy though.

Wikipedia says: The Meseta Central (lit. 'central tableland', sometimes referred to in English as Inner Plateau) is one of the basic geographical units of the Iberian Peninsula. It consists of a plateau covering a large part of the latter's interior.[1]

Looking at the map you linked the flat part is between 610 to 760 meters.

Finally, when speaking about the Iberian Peninsula Wikipedia itself includes this:

> "About three quarters of that rough octagon is the Meseta Central, a vast plateau ranging from 610 to 760 m in altitude."[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meseta_Central

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#46

Post by malfist »

throwaway5465 wrote: post #28

There seems much defensiveness in the comments here along the lines of "not a new thing" and "not unique to LLM/AI". It seems to deflect, even gaslight TFA. > For most of the articles Pangram flagged as written by GenAI, nearly every cited sentence in the article failed verification. So why deflect that into convenient other pedantry (surely not under the guise tech forums often do so)? WSo why the discomfort for par…

There sure are a lot of green names on this post pushing that agenda. Makes you wonder if its astroturfing. And why its nessecary, is AI so fragile it can't let any criticism stand unchallenged?

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#47

Post by nullsanity »

DrewADesign wrote: post #42
EA-3167 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point you're forced to either believe that people have never heard of the concept of a force multiplier, or to return to Upton Sinclair's observation about getting people to believe in things that hurt their bottom line.

I don’t see why people keep blaming cars for road safety problems; people got into buggy crashes for centuries before automobiles even existed

Because a difference in scale can become a difference in category. A handful of buggy crashes can be reduced to operator error, but as the car becomes widely adopted and analysis matures, it becomes clear that the fundamental design of the machine and its available use cases has fundamental flaws that cause a higher rate of operator error than desired. Therefore, cars are redesigned to be safer, laws and regulations are put in place, license systems are issued, and traffic calming and road design is considered.

Hope that helps you understand.

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#48

Post by malfist »

emp17344 wrote: post #32
throwaway5465 wrote: post #28

There seems much defensiveness in the comments here along the lines of "not a new thing" and "not unique to LLM/AI". It seems to deflect, even gaslight TFA. > For most of the articles Pangram flagged as written by GenAI, nearly every cited sentence in the article failed verification. So why deflect that into convenient other pedantry (surely not under the guise tech forums often do so)? WSo why the discomfort for par…

Astroturfing or marketing, I’d guess. I’ve noticed you’re no longer allowed to say negative things about AI here without significant pushback, and I’d bet this isn’t an organic shift in perception.

I've found that generally people reserve down votes for posts that don't add to the conversation, in general, just like we're supposed to do. Its always been down vote city if you happen to criticize political positions that benefit libertarian technologists. But lately anything critical of AI tends to get a lot of down votes. Even on older posts that you can't find on the front page anymore... It feels inorganic

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#49

Post by malfist »

charcircuit wrote: post #14
ktzar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know about Grokipedia, I've just opened an article in it about Spain, scrolled to a random paragraph, and the information in it is plain wrong: From https://grokipedia.com/page/Spain#terrain-and-landforms > Spain's peninsular terrain is dominated by the Meseta Central, a vast interior plateau covering about two-thirds of the country's land area, with elevations ranging from 610 to 760 meters and averaging arou…

Grok does cite that claim as being from https://countrystudies.us/spain/30.htm a page in Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Spain: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988. The nice thing about grokipedia is that if you have counter examples like that you can provide it as evidence to change it and it will rewrite the article to be more clear.

You know what other site you can provide evidence to and change to be more correct?

Re: Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

#50

Post by homebrewer »

malfist wrote: post #49
charcircuit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grok does cite that claim as being from https://countrystudies.us/spain/30.htm a page in Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Spain: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988. The nice thing about grokipedia is that if you have counter examples like that you can provide it as evidence to change it and it will rewrite the article to be more clear.

You know what other site you can provide evidence to and change to be more correct?

I don't ever edit English wikipedia because my English is not nearly up to the standard, and suggestions for improvement (worthwhile IMO) are usually ignored. Grok at least won't ignore you. (I tend to post suggestions to unpopular pages with sparse edit history, which is probably the reason for them going unnoticed.)
Post reply on HN