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
Ben Ford 
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg do you have statistical evidence or is this opinion?
@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
"do you have statistical evidence or is this opinion?" - neither. Literal facts from Maths textbooks https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/110819316450570395 https://dotnet.social/@SmartmanApps/111203914444416857 - being a Maths teacher - none of which get cited on the Wiki pages, despite many textbooks being available for free on the Internet Archive. Welcome to Wikipedia has a Maths facts problem (and some non-Maths ones too)
π‘πππΊππππΊπ π°ππππ± (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Reference in top left of screenshot. Note the use of the words "everything" and "must" - certainly no room for ambiguity there! Hence the Distributive Law, because must always be obeyed. AKA expand brackets, AKA expand and simplify. Next, "if you want to remove the bracket" - in other words, you CAN'T remove the brackets UNTIL YOU HAVE DISTRIBUTED AND SIMPLIFIED. Mistake #1 removing the brackets before completing that. Mistake #2 ignoring that the "multiplication" is INSIDE THE BRACKETS...
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg ok. So you have no evidence of your claim that Wikipedia is false information and are just spouting off on the internet. Go touch grass for a bit. Cheers.
@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
"ok. So you have no evidence of your claim that Wikipedia is false information and are just spouting off on the internet" - ok, so you claim that MATHS TEXTBOOKS are "no evidence" and are just spouting off on the internet. Got it. π Welcome to why Wikipedia is full of false information π π‘
"ok. So you have no evidence of your claim that Wikipedia is false information and are just spouting off on the internet" - ok, so you claim that MATHS TEXTBOOKS are "no evidence" and are just spouting off on the internet. Got it. π Welcome to why Wikipedia is full of false information π π‘
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg your claim is βThe problem is Wiki already contains a lot of wrong info.β
Your supporting argument is βmaths textbooksβ
Show the math textbook that says βWikipedia is full of false information.β You claim to be a math person. Surely you know how to construct a valid proof.
@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
"Show the math textbook that says βWikipedia is full of false informationβ - I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then. You know perfectly well it proves the Wikipedia page on that topic is wrong. π There are many other such pages, also proven wrong by textbooks
"Surely you know how to construct a valid proof" - textbooks trump your "nuh uh" every time π
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg nobody asked you whether one out of 65,380,334 pages was correct or not, nor is it significant. Thatβs 0.000001529511917% of Wikipedia. You have a hell of a long way to go before youβve supported your βfull of misinformationβ claim.
@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
"nobody asked you whether one out of 65,380,334 pages was correct or not" - and I never said anything about one page, but MANY pages π
"Thatβs 0.000001529511917% of Wikipedia" - that's a strawman
"You have a hell of a long way to go before youβve supported your βfull of misinformationβ claim" - go ahead and search for #MathsMonday to find a whole bunch more (and that's only for Maths)!
@SmartmanApps @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg βmanyβ is still not statistically significant, nor is it my responsibility to do the research to back up your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
For someone who claims to be a βsmart manβ and a maths expert, youβre not demonstrating qualities of either. Iβm going to block you now. I think Iβve given you enough free education.
@binford2k @TechDesk @404mediaco @emanuelmaiberg
"βmanyβ is still not statistically significant," - how does every Maths page I've ever seen grab you as statistically significant? π
"nor is it my responsibility to do the research to back up your claim" - I already backed it up. You haven't backed up your claim
"For someone who claims to be a βsmart manβ " - not me. I see you don't ever bother doing any research
"Iβm going to block you now" - unable to refute anything I said then