Assignment 2: Should AI be used to create Wikipedia articles? - BAE JINSU(배진수)

 I believe that the most important factors in evaluating the significance of information are as follows. First, is the information described from an objective perspective? Second, if it is not objective but rather a subjective opinion, is the reasoning logically valid? Third, is the information generally reliable? I think these points should form the foundation for information provision, including platforms like Wikipedia. Of course, factors such as expertise and variables are also important, but in my view, these are secondary considerations in the broader context of information dissemination.

 Moving on to the main point, why does the argument exist that “Should AI be used to write Wikipedia articles?” The main issues can be found in Claire Woodcock’s article, "AI Is Tearing Wikipedia Apart" (May 2, 2023, 9:00am). According to this article, many people are concerned about the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, as well as the potential decline in the quality of Wikipedia. In fact, recent studies have shown that about 5% of newly created Wikipedia articles are generated by AI, and some of these contain false information, advertisements, or even intentional distortions of history. In other words, the general opinion is that Wikipedia content created by AI cannot be trusted.

 However, I have an interesting question: can we really trust humans completely? Are materials researched and written by people always more accurate and objective than those produced by AI? While I highly value the “noble concerns of humanity,” I believe that the information-processing capabilities of automated programs will continue to evolve and improve. Eventually, I think these capabilities will surpass the scope of human understanding and ability.

 Therefore, my answer to the question is that, for now, it is better to avoid using AI for Wikipedia article writing as much as possible. However, I expect that, in the end, it will become much more efficient for humanity to use AI in creating Wikipedia articles. I find myself feeling rather skeptical about this.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more