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.

  • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I would argue otherwise.

    Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.

    I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it’s rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.

    • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      45
      ·
      8 months ago

      So you know there is wrong information on wikipedia, but you still trust it as a primary source? That says a lot about you.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Trust but verify my dude.

        What you’re saying is that you don’t trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not a primary source. Also, every Wikipedia page posts the primary sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is just a compendium, it’s not a peer reviewed journal. Use some brain matter before it rots my dude.

      • Docus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not considered a primary source. Nobody said it is. But it’s a good starting point for further research in most topics.