Surly it can’t be because of the decline in quality because of deposit admins defending their own personal fiefdoms.
That is too bad. Wikipedia is important.
This will be unpopular, but hear me out. Maybe the decline in visitors is only a decline in the folks who are simply looking for a specific word or name and the forgot. Like, that one guy who believed in the survival of the fittest. Um. Let me try to remember. I think he had an epic beard. Ah! Darwin! I just needed a reminder, I didn’t want to read the entire article on him because I did that years ago.
Look at your own behaviors on lemmy. How often do you click/tap through to the complete article? What if it’s just a headline? What if it’s the whole article pasted into the body of the post? Click bait headlines are almost universally hated, but it’s a desperate attempt to drive traffic to the site. Sometimes all you need is the article synopsis. Soccer team A beats team B in overtime. Great, that’s all I need to know…unless I have a fantasy team.
If you don’t check their name - Darwin - on Wikipedia, where do you check it? A random AI? When you’re on Facebook, their AI? When you’re on Reddit, their AI? How trustworthy are they? What does that mean for general user behavior in the short and long term?
When you’re satisfied with a soccer match score from a headline, fair enough. Which headline do you refer to, though? Who provides it? Who ensures it is correct?
Wikipedia is an established and good source for many things.
The point is that people get their information elsewhere now. Where it may be incomplete, wrong, or maliciously misrepresenting or lying. Where discovering more related information is even further away. Instead of the next paragraph or a scroll or index nav list jump away, no hyperlink, no information.
Personally, I regularly explore and verify sources.
I doubt most of those visits to Wikipedia were as shallow as finding just one name or term. Maybe one piece of information. Which may already go deeper than shallow term finding, and cross references and notes may spark interests or relevant concerns.
You have a lot of good points and I may have missed the intent of the article, but a knee jerk reaction of “lower traffic = AI is bad” is not helpful either. My point is that I frequently find myself hitting a page just to check a reference, quote or remember something. AI search results can be useful here. It’s no different than how DuckDugkGo has a sidebar if the results are from StackOverflow. It’s nice to get quick answers. I would like to see a fair solution to the content creators being able to stay in business.
I think that you did not understand OC correctly…
What OC is talking about, is that the person searching for the lost word is verification enough. Meaning as soon as the word is seen, the remember is triggered to where the searching person knows the information already.
Half my visits to Wikipedia are because I need to copy and paste a Unicode character and that’s always the highest search result with a page I can easily copy and paste the exact character from.
Em dash? Wikipedia.
Nice-looking quotes? Wikipedia.
Accented uppercase letters? Wikipedia.
(Yeah, I know. The last one can only be understood by Italian speakers; or speakers of other languages with stupid keyboard layouts)
Maybe the humans are going outside and the library?
Oh I hope not.
I do not want us to return to the days of people getting limited information from outdated books from a state ran facility.
It’s called: playing in the real world.
It’s good for your health to be disconnected from the brain rot internet
They would be better if they were funded better.
Oh I didn’t mean change the current setup. Create a standalone tool that better uses the wiki framework so people can access it in a different way, that’s all.
If this AI stuff weren’t a bubble and the companies dumping billions into it were capable of any long term planning they’d call up wikipedia and say “how much do you need? we’ll write you a cheque”
They’re trying to figure out nefarious ways of getting data from people and wikipedia literally has people doing work to try to create high quality data for a relatively small amount of money that’s very valuable to these AI companies.
But nah, they’ll just shove AI into everything blow the equivalent of Wikipedia’s annual budget in a week on just electricity to shove unwanted AI slop into people’s faces.
But nah, they’ll just shove AI into everything blow the equivalent of Wikipedia’s annual budget in a week on just electricity to shove unwanted AI slop into people’s faces.
You’re off my several order of magnitude unfortunately. Tech giants are spending the equivalent of the entire fucking Apollo program on various AI investments every year at this point.
Because they already ate through every piece of content on wikipedia years and years ago. They’re at the stage where they’ve trawled nearly the entire internet and are running out of content to find.
So now the AI trawls other AI slop, so it’s essentially getting inbred. So they literally need you to subscribe to their AI slop so they can get new data directly from you because we’re still nowhere near AGI.
Every time someone visits Wikipedia they make exactly $0. In fact, it costs them money. Are people still contributing and/or donating? These seem like more important questions to me.
I think the theory is that the people who contribute and/or donate are a subset of the people who frequently visit. The smaller the superset, the smaller the subset is likely to be. I could be wrong; I’m not part of the subset that reads the articles.
yeah, i drop a $20-25 donation yearly.
There are indirect benefits to visitors, though. Yes, most people are a drain on resources because they visit strictly to read and never to contribute. The minority that do contribute, though, are presumably people who used Wikipedia and liked it, or people who enjoy knowing that other people are benefiting from their contributions. I’m not sure people will donate or edit on Wikipedia if they believe no one is using it.
I’d make a cash donation right now if I could.
I got you fam. I’ve been making a decent monthly donation for years. Consider one of those on your behalf!
I sympathize with Wikipedia here because I really like the platform. That being said, modernize and get yourself a new front end. People don’t like AI because of it’s intrusiveness. They want convenience. Create “Knowledge-bot” or something similar that is focused on answering questions in a more meaningful way.
The last thing Wikipedia should do is change the look. Modernizing is a waste of resources when it works just fine all to just to give idiots a new dopamine hit.
Capitalism is the problem not wikipedia. Plus the reference desk exists, its just not instant.
Wikipedia Says AI Is Causing a Dangerous Decline in Human Visitors
FWIW:
Wikipedia:Reference desk
Interesting. I had never heard about this. Could still use a lot of sprucing up.
IIRC, they expect people to first try to find the answers themselves—perhaps they could check out a few WP articles—no “Who’s the Secretary of the Department of Interior” or similar questions;
though my big (perhaps only) problem is that a question only stands for a while—maybe a few days or week or so—before it’s archived. In some of the forums (non-WP) of about 20 years ago, one could answer questions asked months, maybe years, earlier that are still relevant.
Still, I’ve gotten a few good answers to the few questions I posted on it.
(pasting a Mastodon post I wrote few days ago on StackOverflow but IMHO applies to Wikipedia too)
"AI, as in the current LLM hype, is not just pointless but rather harmful epistemologically speaking.
It’s a big word so let me unpack the idea with 1 example :
- StackOverflow, or SO for shot.
So SO is cratering in popularity. Maybe it’s related to LLM craze, maybe not but in practice, less and less people is using SO.
SO is basically a software developer social network that goes like this :
- hey I have this problem, I tried this and it didn’t work, what can I do?
- well (sometimes condescendingly) it works like this so that worked for me and here is why
then people discuss via comments, answers, vote, etc until, hopefully the most appropriate (which does not mean “correct”) answer rises to the top.
The next person with the same, or similar enough, problem gets to try right away what might work.
SO is very efficient in that sense but sometimes the tone itself can be negative, even toxic.
Sometimes the person asking did not bother search much, sometimes they clearly have no grasp of the problem, so replies can be terse, if not worst.
Yet the content itself is often correct in the sense that it does solve the problem.
So SO in a way is the pinnacle of “technically right” yet being an ass about it.
Meanwhile what if you could get roughly the same mapping between a problem and its solution but in a nice, even sycophantic, matter?
Of course the switch will happen.
That’s nice, right?.. right?!
It is. For a bit.
It’s actually REALLY nice.
Until the “thing” you “discuss” with maybe KPI is keeping you engaged (as its owner get paid per interaction) regardless of how usable (let’s not even say true or correct) its answer is.
That’s a deep problem because that thing does not learn.
It has no learning capability. It’s not just “a bit slow” or “dumb” but rather it does not learn, at all.
It gets updated with a new dataset, fine tuned, etc… but there is no action that leads to invalidation of a hypothesis generated a novel one that then … setup a safe environment to test within (that’s basically what learning is).
So… you sit there until the LLM gets updated but… with that? Now that less and less people bother updating your source (namely SO) how is your “thing” going to lean, sorry to get updated, without new contributions?
Now if we step back not at the individual level but at the collective level we can see how short-termist the whole endeavor is.
Yes, it might help some, even a lot, of people to “vile code” sorry I mean “vibe code”, their way out of a problem, but if :
- they, the individual
- it, the model
- we, society, do not contribute back to the dataset to upgrade from…
well I guess we are going faster right now, for some, but overall we will inexorably slow down.
So yes epistemologically we are slowing down, if not worst.
Anyway, I’m back on SO, trying to actually understand a problem. Trying to actually learn from my “bad” situation and rather than randomly try the statistically most likely solution, genuinely understand WHY I got there in the first place.
I’ll share my answer back on SO hoping to help other.
Don’t just “use” a tool, think, genuinely, it’s not just fun, it’s also liberating.
Literally.
Don’t give away your autonomy for a quick fix, you’ll get stuck."
originally on https://mastodon.pirateparty.be/@utopiah/115315866570543792
Most importantly, the pipeline from finding a question on SO that you also have, to answering that question after doing some more research is now completely derailed because if you ask an AI a question and it doesn’t have a good answer you have no way to contribute your eventual solution to the problem.
I honestly think that LLM will result in no progress made ever in computer science.
Most past inventions and improvements were made because of necessity of how sucky computers are and how unpleasant it is to work with them (we call it “abstraction layers”). And it was mostly done on company’s dime.
Now companies will prefer to produce slop (even more) because it will hope to automate slop production.
As an expert in my engineering field I would agree. LLMs has been a great tool for my job in being better at technical writing or getting over the hump of coding something every now and then. That’s where I see the future for ChatGPT/AI LLMs; providing a tool that can help people broaden their skills.
There is no future for the expertise in fields and the depth of understanding that would be required to make progress in any field unless specifically trained and guided. I do not trust it with anything that is highly advanced or technical as I feel I start to teach it.
Maybe SO should run everyone’s answers through a LLM and revoke any points a person gets for a condescending answer even if accepted.
Give a warning and suggestions to better meet community guidelines.
It can be very toxic there.
Yet I still have to go to the page for the episode lists of my favorite TV shows because every time I ask AI which ones to watch it starts making up episodes that either don’t exist or it gives me the wrong number.
It used to be that the first result to a lot of queries, was a link to the relevant Wikipedia article. But that first result has now been replaced by an ai summary of the relevant Wikipedia article. If people don’t need more info than that summary, they don’t click through. That Ai summary is a layer of abstraction that wouldn’t be able to exist without the source material that it’s now making less viable to exist. Kinda like a parasite.
It’s a layer of dependency and a barrier to entry. AI is not a servant to our interests but censor, preacher and teacher and cult speaker who works for psychopaths who would happily re-enslave the human race.
AI will inevitably kill all the sources of actual information. Then all were going to be left with is the fuzzy learned version of information plus a heap of hallucinations.
What a time to be alive.
AI just cuts pastes from the websites like Wikipedia. The problem is when it gets information that’s old or from a sketchy source. Hopefully people will still know how to check sources, should probably be taught in schools. Who’s the author, how olds the article, is it a reputable website, is there a bias. I know I’m missing some pieces
You replied to OP while somehow missing the entire point of what he said lol
Do be fair I didn’t read the article
That’s not ‘being fair’ that’s just you admitting you’d rather hear your own blathering voice than do any real work.
To be fair calling that work is stretching it
Much of the time, AI paraphrases, because it is generating plausible sentences not quoting factual material. Rarely do I see direct quotes that don’t involve some form of editorialising or restating of information, but perhaps I’m just not asking those sorts of questions much.
“With fewer visits to Wikipedia, fewer volunteers may grow and enrich the content, and fewer individual donors may support this work.”
I understand the donors aspect, but I don’t think anyone who is satisfied with AI slop would bother to improve wiki articles anyway.
The idea that there’s a certain type of person that’s immune to a social tide is not very sound, in my opinion. If more people use genAI, they may teach people who could have been editors in later years to use genAI instead.
That’s a good point, scary to think that there are people growing up now for whom LLMs are the default way of accessing knowledge.
Eh, people said the exact same thing about Wikipedia in the early 2000’s. A group of randos on the internet is going to “crowd source” truth? Absurd! And the answer to that was always, “You can check the source to make sure it says what they say it says.” If you’re still checking Wikipedia sources, then you’re going to check the sources AI provides as well. All that changes about the process is how you get the list of primary sources. I don’t mind AI as a method of finding sources.
The greater issue is that people rarely check primary sources. And even when they do, the general level of education needed to read and understand those sources is a somewhat high bar. And the even greater issue is that AI-generated half-truths are currently mucking up primary sources. Add to that intentional falsehoods from governments and corporations, and it already seems significantly more difficult to get to the real data on anything post-2020.
But Wikipedia actually is crowd sourced data verification. Every AI prompt response is made up on the fly and there’s no way to audit what other people are seeing for accuracy.
Hey! An excuse to quote my namesake.
Hackworth got all the news that was appropriate to his situation in life, plus a few optional services: the latest from his favorite cartoonists and columnists around the world; the clippings on various peculiar crackpot subjects forwarded to him by his father […] A gentleman of higher rank and more far-reaching responsibilities would probably get different information written in a different way, and the top stratum of New Chuasan actually got the Times on paper, printed out by a big antique press […] Now nanotechnology had made nearly anything possible, and so the cultural role in deciding what should be done with it had become far more important than imagining what could be done with it. One of the insights of the Victorian Revivial was that it was not necessarily a good thing for everyone to read a completely different newspaper in the morning; so the higher one rose in society, the more similar one’s Times became to one’s peers’. - The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson (1995)
That is to say, I agree that everyone getting different answers is an issue, and it’s been a growing problem for decades. AI’s turbo-charged it, for sure. If I want, I can just have it yes-man me all day long.
Not me. I value Wikipedia content over AI slop.
I’m part of the problem. I now use Le Chat instead of search engines because AI destroyed search engines, thanks to all the content mills that make slop. I wish search engines just worked, and it’s a classic example of capitalism creating problems to justify new technology.
And I wonder if it’s just AI. I know some people moved to backing up pre-2025 versions of Wikipedia via Kiwix out of fear that the site gets censored. I know now that I’ve done that, it’s a no-brainer to just do my Wikipedia research without using bandwidth.
Search engines will still give Wikipedia results at the top for relevant searches. Heck, you can search Wikipedia itself directly!
Both Ecosia and DuckDuckGo support some form of “bangs”, if I tack
!wonto my search it’ll immediate go through to Wikipedia.
DuckDuckGo has even introduced an AI image filter, which is not perfect but still pretty good.Bangs are helpful, but my problem is that I previously used search engines to find informative articles and product suggestions beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and so much of that is AI slop now. And if it’s not that, Reddit shows up disproportionately in search results and Google is dominated by promoted posts.
Search engines used to be really good at connecting people to reliable resources, even if you didn’t have a specific website in mind, if you were good with keywords/boolean and had a discerning eye for reliable content, but now the slop-to-valuable-content ratio is too disproportionate. So you either need to have pre-memorized a list of good websites, rely on Chatbots, or take significantly longer wading through the muck.
