Flipboard Tech DeskWikipedia has banned its editors from using AI to create articles, @404mediaco reports. @emanuelmaiberg talked to the Wikipedia editor who proposed the guideline about why.
π‘πππΊππππΊπ π°ππππ±@TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
The problem is Wiki already contains a lot of wrong info. I saw an article yesterday which I'm pretty sure was mostly AI slop regurgitaed from a very wrong Wiki page. The problem with it is your next-door-neighbour Joe Blow, who has forgotten the rules of Maths, is totally allowed to admin a page about Maths. Welcome to why I post it here instead. Wikipedia is "like an encyclopedia" in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin
The problem is Wiki already contains a lot of wrong info. I saw an article yesterday which I'm pretty sure was mostly AI slop regurgitaed from a very wrong Wiki page. The problem with it is your next-door-neighbour Joe Blow, who has forgotten the rules of Maths, is totally allowed to admin a page about Maths. Welcome to why I post it here instead. Wikipedia is "like an encyclopedia" in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin
Furbland's Very Cool Mastodonβ’@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg for every troll who edits an article, thereβs 5 dedicated editors standing by to correct it. the beauty of wikis is that theyβre constantly being fact-checked by tons of experts. @wikipedia even has a dedicated counter-vandalism team!
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia the problem with traditional encyclopedias is they tend to be biased and can be hard to update. Wikipedia and its many policies bypass all that
@GroupNebula563 @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia
"for every troll who edits an article" - Professor Rick Norwood isn't a troll https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rick-Norwood and yet his Maths corrections keep getting backed out by admins. Welcome to why I post my Maths facts on Mastodon, where no-one can back them out https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110968910722113903
@GroupNebula563 @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia
"theyβre constantly being fact-checked by tons of experts" - and getting backed out again by admins. See previous comment. None of the Maths pages ever cite any Maths textbooks, despite the fact there are many available for free on the Internet Archive
"many policies bypass all that" - including bypassing fact-checking π so either the policies don't work, or aren't followed. Either way Wikipedia has a facts problem
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia the policies do work, and are followed. they work quite well, in fact. the articles don't cite textbooks, but they *do* cite papers from credible mathematicians/universities, which IMO tend to be far more authoritative. if this rick norwood is a highly credible mathematician, he himself would likely have a wikipedia article, and unless he died in 1675, he does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Norwood
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia the only "rick norwood" i can find on wikipedia, unless he goes under another username there, is an avid contributor to the project and seems to quite enjoy it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rick_Norwood
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia ...or he was, until he was diagnosed with alzheimer's and begun making disruptive edits to pages, which are probably the ones getting reverted that you're talking about. not to mention, there's zero indication i can find that the wikipedia editor rick and the researchgate rick are the same person
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia if you have any further concerns about wikipedia or any other wikimedia projects, i highly suggest taking that up with @LucasWerkmeister, the only person i can think of off the top of my head who is more qualified than i to answer this sort of thing
@GroupNebula563 @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia @LucasWerkmeister
"the policies do work, and are followed" - clearly not, given pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... exist
"IMO tend to be far more authoritative" - I see you haven't read any of their blog posts then, where they can't even get order of operations right (spoiler alert: they don't teach it at university, it's taught in high school, which they've long since left - high school textbooks are the references to use)
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia @LucasWerkmeister ...you can see right here where it cites two textbooks explaining exactly why the article is correct
https://books.google.com/books?id=jWgPAQAAMAAJ
https://archive.org/details/mathematicalanal02edtomm/page/n3/mode/2up
Elements of Algebra
Algebra is abstract mathematics - let us make no bones about it - yet it is also applied mathematics in its best and purest form. It is not abstraction for its own sake, but abstraction for the sake of efficiency, power and insight. Algebra emerged from the struggle to solve concrete, physical problems in geometry, and succeeded after 2000 years of failure by other forms of mathematics. It did this by exposing the mathematical structure of geometry, and by providing the tools to analyse it. This is typical of the way algebra is applied; it is the best and purest form of application because it reveals the simplest and most universal mathematical structures. The present book aims to foster a proper appreciation of algebra by showing abstraction at work on concrete problems, the classical problems of construction by straightedge and compass. These problems originated in the time of Euclid, when geometry and number theory were paramount, and were not solved until th the 19 century, with the advent of abstract algebra. As we now know, alge bra brings about a unification of geometry, number theory and indeed most branches of mathematics. This is not really surprising when one has a historical understanding of the subject, which I also hope to impart.
@GroupNebula563 @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia @LucasWerkmeister
""you can see right here where it cites two textbooks" - nope. I can see quite clearly they are NOT Maths textbooks, as I said
"explaining exactly why the article is correct" - now go read about limits and/or decimal representations in Maths textbooks and you'll discover why it's wrong. Here's a free head-start explaining why 1/3 isn't actually equal to 0.333... and is only an approximation (now multiply by 3)
Steffi the Redhead@SmartmanApps @GroupNebula563 @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg @wikipedia @LucasWerkmeister you have to make the line for "period" over the 3 of 0,3.
Fish Face@fuchsi @GroupNebula563 @wikipedia @LucasWerkmeister
This person is a crank and will not understand, but I do encourage you to push back on his pollution of mastodon.
As you can see, he just tried to pass off a page about finite decimal expansions as if it were about infinite ones (which are over the page). I actually don't think this is dishonesty; I think he genuinely has such a poor grasp of mathematics beyond the level of high school that he doesn't understand why he's wrong. It's fascinating to observe.
@fuchsi
Keep this in mind - Gaslighter (who is NEVER able to cite any textbooks that agree with him) just told you an outright lie about the page being about finite decimals, not infinite decimals, as seen here... (if he thinks that 0.(3) is a finite decimal, after how many places does it terminate? π )
Keep this in mind - Gaslighter (who is NEVER able to cite any textbooks that agree with him) just told you an outright lie about the page being about finite decimals, not infinite decimals, as seen here... (if he thinks that 0.(3) is a finite decimal, after how many places does it terminate? π )
