Even Wikipedia is union-busting now.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2026
821 points (98.5% liked)
memes
22296 readers
2312 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wikipedia and its contributors: Good.
Domain name owners and server hosters (Wikimedia Foundation): Bad.
And I might get some hate for this but I think of Reddit the same way. I hate the platform and its owners but what’s ON the platform was posted by the community, for the community.
Who do I donate money to then?
I want Wikipedia to battle misinformation, they are theoretically equipped to do that. I want a last bastion of pre social media pre enshitification Internet, if possible.
Your wiki is cool and all but not making a dent at the moment.
But a lot of redditors and the bots are garbage too. That place eis full of so much transphobia and racism these days. Not to say lemmy is perfect but I've certainly seen less of it here.
But a lot of redditors and the bots are garbage too. That place eis full of so much transphobia and racism these days.
I think that's just general society right now
Well, if in the foundation you include the moderators/admins or whatever they call them on wikipedia, then I agree. But just like on reddit, the mods of wikipedia are also part of the issue (not all but most).
load more comments
(2 replies)
The Wikimedia Foundation has very little to do with what goes on on the English Wikipedia. It hosts the infrastructure, puts some legal policies in place, and really from there, the community-elected administrators (who are themselves active contributors) are the ones who handle enforcement, and the rules are discussed by the community.
Even the administrators don't exercise all that much power. In ten years, I think I've seen the office have to step in exactly one time – for a possible libel issue when even the administrators couldn't agree with each other.
Lesser of two evils, one can be better, one can only be worse.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is how they led us into this mess.
Who, when and what
It's funny how things have shifted from people complaining about citing Wikipedia to people citing AI. Now Wikipedia may as well be the gutenberg
I think part of that has been actual elevated standards on Wikipedia with a more robust culture for things like citations, but probably more importantly, it's readers already being expected to understand that Wikipedia isn't an inherently credible source and needs checking if you actually care.
Of course part of it now too, as you imply, is generative AI making it look more rigorous by comparison and lowering people's standards.
I'm lazy and have started treating wikipedia as a primary source. But if I'm quoting it to somebody else, I tend to look at the cited references to make sure I trust those.
🤓 Point of clarification: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources refer to the proximity to the original information, not to their reliability.
- A primary source would be something like a study on a drug.
- A secondary source would be something like a news article discussing the study or a meta-analysis collating a bunch of studies on that drug.
- A tertiary source would be something like a Wikipedia article or a section of a textbook discussing the drug as a whole.
Secondary and tertiary sources often comprise both the most reliable and unreliable sources. 🤓
(Ik what you meant by "primary" lol)
I meant it exactly as your definitions. Academically. My fuck up was saying "as" instead of "equal to" or "like." Hence me admitting how utterly lazy that is. I should also add irresponsible.
Wikipedia is by design not citable, unless you include the revision number, but it contains all the sources to cite.
are people actually citing AI? i wonder how that would look like, it certainly sounds like: "my mom said..."
tl;dr: i never saw a problem in using Wikipedia (even at it's beginning), but it's an awesome to to get started with a topic, same counts for AI I guess.
No encyclopedia is citable. They're not primary or secondary sources.
You can’t use tertiary sources in academic research because they’re just aggregation of references. You need primary sources whenever possible, and secondary sources when primary sources are unavailable.
Which is where going down to the references and grabbing the primary sources there comes in handy, because you can cite those.
Thank you for being the one to say this; it’s usually me. I typically also address the idea, espoused by far too many teachers, that ‘you can’t cite Wikipedia because it’s an unreliable source’. Where that statement is obviously wrong as Wikipedia nor any encyclopedia is a source, rather it’s a resource, but also, Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia to date due to its ability to be updated on a whim. Which serves to offset the ‘half-life of facts’ that understandably effects the accuracy of written encyclopedias.
Yeah that's a big failing on the teachers, not explaining why you can't cite Wikipedia. It's not hard to explain "you can't cite wikipedia directly because it isn't a source. It's just a collection of references, and you need to go cite the primary source, and here is where wikipedia lists their sources for each claim and how you can cite them".
This is online discussions, people use links. Similarly copy and paste from AI output. Online isn't as formal or regulated as published works.
According to APA guidelines, citing an AI is valid but the citation is just
“I used X Model for Y purpose.” And doesn’t require anything more lol
i mean using a model to obtain certain data is fine, we did that already twenty years ago. it would just not be called citing
I had a customer at the store I work at use GPT for info on what we sell. I'd rather he was referencing twitch chat when he told me chat told him we sold something.
Not anymore, shady leadership. Everything on the site is suspect as a result.
"Hey AI overview! Can you please AI overview this wikipedia article for me?"
view more: next ›