this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024

705 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59534 readers

3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

705

AI-generated content and other unfavorable practices have put longtime staple CNET on Wikipedia's blacklisted sources (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 8 months ago by DolphinMath@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yet Wikipedia still rates the israeli propaganda think tank ADL as a reliable source. Very interesting website.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

even a source which is generally reliable can have its reliability questioned in any context. and a source that is generally unreliable for some reason or another can be considered reliable in some context.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Wikipedia is awful for information on geopolitics or any subjective history. People think that they are reading "objective information" but in reality they are reading propaganda

They've been doing this for more than 13 years: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 4 points 8 months ago

Wikipedia is aweful for anything controversial, of which geopolitics is merely a good example.

Probably fine for basic stuff like geology or the Napoleonic Wars or whatever.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

further, I wouldn't just remove the word preemptive if I thought this was really an issue. I'd go find a reliable source that would support a rewrite of the whole sentence or paragraph or section.

then I would go to the talk page and I would let everybody know what I'm doing and why. and then I wouldn't do it for 24 hours. and then I would make the edits and if anybody reverted it I would revert it back and then direct them to the talk page.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.world -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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