1099
Wikipedia Says AI Is Causing a Dangerous Decline in Human Visitors
(www.404media.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
1099 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76365 readers
1074 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In my case, I simply ended up buying a subscription to Brittanica, which I started using instead. I just don't trust wikipedia in this era. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/
If an 'information source' is planning to start using AI, I'm going to go with one that has some accountability.
Such a disingenuous take.
That link clearly states they have no intention of replacing human content with AI.
It goes on to say they plan to use AI for moderation detection and flagging things for human review. That’s not a problem at all.
Oh and accountable Britannica has an entire forward facing AI for users to directly get misinformed by. https://www.britannica.com/chatbot (it’s just a wrapper for ChatGPT).
Not all AI use is bad, and it sounds to me like you didn't read that article itself. They have no desire or intention to use AI in a way that directly effects the information on the site, how it's presented to visitors or to use it in a way that would manipulate how articles are edited.
The only potential note is translation, but translation is such a massive undertaking that by providing a means to discuss and interact between languages, the information becomes more broadly available and open to correction as needed by native speakers.
Also, Britannica does employ the use of AI within their own system as well, even providing a chatbot by which to ask questions and search for information. It is, in this way, more involved than Wikipedia's goals.
To be fair in June they tried to introduce AI-generated "simple summaries" to articles, but the editor community was so vehemently against it, that in the end they shelved the idea.
Fair enough. I missed this push amidst every other AI related enshittification tactict at the time I guess. That said, this is how it should work. An organization proposes a change and the change is withdrawn or halted after the userbase is able to weigh in. I'm pleased that they didn't barrel ahead with it despite the outcry.
I feel for the Wikimedia foundation right now. They're under mounting pressure to compete with corporations that hold a monopoly on how people access their sites and subsequently the information on them. The goal is to provide open information, but that information is no less open to the AI that aims to scrape, rehost, and re-use the work of individuals who have volunteered their time to it.
I think it would have been easy for them to effectively do what Reddit did, and lock down the access to the site and its content in order to develop their own AI tools to perform similar tasks trained on their dataset exclusively. Instead, they've listened and I hope they continue to listen to their dedicated members who believe in the foundation's original goals.
Agreed, despite its faults, Wikipedia/Wikimedia is one of the most ethical organisations I know of, to a large degree because of how much average users can take part in its various decision-making processes. Most of its bureaucratic processes happen in the open - I sometimes enjoy reading through 15-years-old discussions about why/if a certain page should be deleted or a certain user banned.