Average readers aren't the only ones tired of sorting through AI "work"— Wikipedia editors have had it, too.

In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.

Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia’s editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    01·
    9 months ago

    A great example is how Wikipedia uses Zionist lies is the 6 day war started by israel. It is stated as a “premptive strike” on Egypt.

    On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes

    In reality everyone including israeli PM’s acknowledges that israel started that there was no threat. Factually stating it pre-emptive is a straight up lie. It is a highly controversial statement at best.

    Try removing the word “pre-emtptive” from that article and let me know how it goes.

    • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      9 months ago

      isn’t it accurate to say it’s preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        9 months ago

        Pre-emptive means that you are striking before being struck. Because there is a direct attack coming

        If there is no attack coming it is not pre-emptive.

        Unprovoked is an entirely different word which would fit. Try replacing it.

        • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          9 months ago

          if the source says preemptive, that’s going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            01·
            9 months ago

            They won’t accept that into any edits because the place is ran by Zionists. You’re welcome to try it.

            Here you go

            The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.

            Had Israel wanted peace with its Arab neighbors, however, it could have simply chosen not to launch the six-day war in the first place and instead heeded the Johnson administration’s advice to seek a resolution to the escalating tensions through diplomatic means in accordance with Israel’s obligations under the UN Charter.

            • Sybil@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              9 months ago

              you just need to time it and work it on the talk page. I’m sure that you can get this article fixed.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                01·
                9 months ago

                Yeah just like how reddit /worldnews is a partial source that is definitely not moderated by Zionists.

                You cannot fix these rotten orgs from the inside. Wikipedia is good for maths and science. Not for geopolitics.