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

91–100 of 132 posts

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

#91

Post by Jepacor »

crazygringo wrote: post #30
mmooss wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've checked Wikipedia citations I've found so much brazen deception - citations that obviously don't support the claim - that I don't have confidence in Wikipedia. > Applying correct citations is actually really hard work, even when you know the material thoroughly. Why do you find it hard? Scholarly references can be sources for fundamental claims, review articles are a big help too. Also, I tend to add things…

It's not that I personally find it hard. It's more like, a lot of stuff in Wikipedia articles is somewhat "general" knowledge in a given field, where it's not always exactly obvious how to cite it, because it's not something any specific person gets credit for "inventing". Like, if there's a particular theorem then sure you cite who came up with it, or the main graduate-level textbook it's taught in. But often it's j…

If you can buy the food at a supermarket, can't you cite a product page? Presumably that would include a description of the product. Or is that not good enough of a citation?

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

#92

Post by ohyoutravel »

asadotzler wrote: post #83
ohyoutravel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s the providers doing this, it’s the awful users. They’re doing the same thing on GitHub. It’s maddening.

I don't think Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are doing this, it's the awful pilots and intercept operators launching missiles into Palestinian homes. I don't think Rostec Corporation is doing this. It's only the grunts on the ground pressing the button sending heavy munitions into crowds of Ukranian civilians. These mega corporations are entirely free from blame and you're gonna see to it none of us question their role,…

It’s a bad analogy. In this case Lockheed isn’t building a killer drone and then finding a market for it, nation states are sending requirements to Lockheed based on what they want to do. Hence the label “defense contractor.”

I think your analogy would hold if slop creators were creating requirements and contracting OpenAI to build the thing that lets them slop edit Wikipedia and GitHub issues. But since they aren’t, this is breaking the analogy.

You are still within the edit window to change up your analogy (but unfortunately not to completely delete your post), so you have a little time to make it coherent.

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

#93

Post by parineum »

asadotzler wrote: post #83
ohyoutravel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s the providers doing this, it’s the awful users. They’re doing the same thing on GitHub. It’s maddening.

I don't think Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are doing this, it's the awful pilots and intercept operators launching missiles into Palestinian homes. I don't think Rostec Corporation is doing this. It's only the grunts on the ground pressing the button sending heavy munitions into crowds of Ukranian civilians. These mega corporations are entirely free from blame and you're gonna see to it none of us question their role,…

> I don't think Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are doing this, it's the awful pilots and intercept operators launching missiles into Palestinian homes.

Missiles have a lot of legitimate and good uses. They sold to the only entity that can buy them, the government, then redistributed from there.

Missiles will be created because there is financial incentive to do so. If you really want to make the point you're trying to make, at least blame the people who create the financial incentive or the people giving orders. You've omitted the obvious most responsible party.

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

#94

Post by parineum »

acdha wrote: post #25
kingstnap wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia having incorrect citations is way older than LLMs. As many other people have pointed out in this thread, if you start pulling strings a lot of what people write starts falling apart. Its not even unique to Wikipedia. Its really not difficult to find very misleading statements cited through a citation that doesn't even support the claim when you check the original.

This is like saying handing out machine guns is no big change because people have been shooting arrows for a long time. At some point volume becomes the story once it overwhelms the community’s ability to correct errors.

> once it overwhelms the community’s ability to correct errors.

I think the point is that it already has.

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

#95

Post by shmeeed »

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.

Well, I guess these days there's just a sizeable chunk of users on HN that earn their living with AI, one way or another. It's really only natural that some of them get thin-skinned if you shit on their lawn.

I'm not a fan of certain trends either, but I wouldn't say it's inorganic. It's just a shift in the industry, and humans being human.

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

#96

Post by Jepacor »

wry_durian wrote: post #13

Note that this article is only about edits made through the Wiki Edu program, which partners with universities and academics to have students edit Wikipedia on course-related topics. It's not about Wikipedia writ large!

Ah, so when you force students to edit Wikipedia for their courses, you get worse results than someone editing something voluntarily because they're passionate about it. That's... Hardly surprising.

So it's more about how generative AI is a problem in college right now because lazy students are using it to do the work than about Wikipedia itself, I think.

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

#97

Post by shmeeed »

LightBug1 wrote: post #79
simianwords wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s on its way to becoming more popular and a clear competitor to it. Just a matter of time.

Is that "more popular" in the sense of McDonald's popular?

No, it's more the "a thousand flies can't be wrong" type. SCNR

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

#98

Post by Jepacor »

fernly wrote: post #56

Set aside the effect within Wikipedia and consider the larger picture, millions of people generating text with LLMs and at least some of that text being accepted as correct by millions of readers. The WikiEdu article clearly demonstrates what everyone should have known already: an LLM has no commitment to the truth. An LLM's only commitment is to correct syntax.

An LLM's only commitment isn't to correct syntax either. It's only commitment is to popular syntax.

It happens that what is popular is correct often enough for the whole thing to somewhat work but I think it's always gonna be bristle.

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

#99

Post by mmcwilliams »

michaelt wrote: post #81
chr15m wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they know it was not LLM generated?

The false claim was added 7 Nov 2022 [1] while chatgpt wasn't released until 30 Nov 2022. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugen_Rochko&diff...

Not that it's likely but there were publicly-released LLMs, like GPT-J, that were released in 2021.

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

#100

Post by tehjoker »

ohyoutravel wrote: post #92
asadotzler wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are doing this, it's the awful pilots and intercept operators launching missiles into Palestinian homes. I don't think Rostec Corporation is doing this. It's only the grunts on the ground pressing the button sending heavy munitions into crowds of Ukranian civilians. These mega corporations are entirely free from blame and you're gonna see to it none of us question their role,…

It’s a bad analogy. In this case Lockheed isn’t building a killer drone and then finding a market for it, nation states are sending requirements to Lockheed based on what they want to do. Hence the label “defense contractor.” I think your analogy would hold if slop creators were creating requirements and contracting OpenAI to build the thing that lets them slop edit Wikipedia and GitHub issues. But since they aren’t,…

I suspect that this is a very simplistic view of how R&D and the revolving door work.

For example, previous Secretary of War Lloyd Austin was on the board of Ratheon

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door/lloyd-austin/summ...

Post reply on HN