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