Wikipedia, the online nonprofit encyclopedia, laid out a simple plan to ensure its website continues to be supported in the AI era, despite its declining traffic.

  • sgtlion [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If AI paid fairly for their training data, they’d be making the biggest losses in human history.

    It’s almost like all successful capitalist business is based on theft and exploitation.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      You think AI companies care what they scrape. Their system is set up to scrape anything it can get.

      • usernameusername@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Oh I know, I was just thinking that if the AI companies will make an exception for Wikipedia (by paying) like the Wikimedia people think, they could also download the complete thing for free. But yeah they probably won’t do any of that so this was kinda useless I think

      • BanMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        They can scrape an ongoing log of interactions between editors about the articles themselves, which is probably fairly worthwhile content honestly. More content there than in articles probably as well.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      From skimming that linked page, I think that this download perhaps doesn’t include recent pages? Because in the section talking about enterprise stuff, it mentions the paid API for recent articles

  • Jimbo@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    In the age of AI slop that you can’t trust, Wikipedia use is going down??

    • Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      2 days ago

      People think they can trust the slop, is the thing. If they even think so far ahead, they probably think that an answer that exists on wikipedia will just be provided by the AI, saving them the time to search for it themselves. I’ve heard more than one horror story of ChatGPT use in particular backfiring on someone who somehow legitimately thought it was just another form of search engine, and didn’t verify the information provided.

    • who@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Kind of funny: When Wikipedia was new, people often said that you couldn’t trust information on it because anyone could have written it, even if they were unqualified, biased, or deliberately deceptive. I guess that’s still true today, but with the advent of automated misinformation generators, the Wiki almost seems authoritative in comparison.

      • MurrayL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, when I was at school in the early 00s we were specifically banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source because it was seen as untrustworthy.

        • quick_snail@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          You’re supposed to reference the articles that Wikipedia references, not Wikipedia itself

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Which is ridiculous, everybody knows that the reason you should be banned from referencing Wikipedia as a source is because an encyclopedia is not a source

          • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            2 days ago

            Uh, it’s a tertiary source. It’s still a source, just not one you should be directly citing. They’re great for finding other sources though.

            • Aneb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              I got a F for plagiarism when I looked up the wiki and dived deeper into the sources and tried to incorporate the ideas and not trying to copy word for word. Apparently 65% was flagged as direct plagiarism from Wiki when I used the sources to write my essay. I was in 6th grade

            • Revan343@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              If we’re being pedantic, yeah, but ‘source’ without qualifiers to me would refer to the one you’d cite. Wikipedia is great for finding general information, and then as you say, finding the source for that information (and also generally a lot more depth to the summary that’s on Wiki).

              Tl;dr use Wiki, don’t cite Wiki

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Can confirm, I’ve been a Wikipedia zealot the entire time and people really do seem to have accepted it. If you ignore what else makes them cheer, it’s a huge victory.