Week8 -- Class Discussion- CUI ZAN

 1. Summary

This week, I read two articles that discuss the use of AI in Wikipedia editing from different perspectives. The Slate article mainly warns us that although AI tools like ChatGPT can quickly create a lot of text, they have serious problems with accuracy, citation standards, and neutrality. AI often generates things that sound right but are actually wrong because it doesn’t really understand the facts. The Vice article goes even further, showing that AI-generated content has already quietly entered Wikipedia and that human volunteers are spending a lot of time fixing, checking, and cleaning up after it. Even though the two articles have slightly different tones, they both send the same message: AI brings not only speed, but also hidden risks that are hard to notice.


2. Interesting Items

Before reading, I thought the main problem would be obvious mistakes like typos or wrong facts. But these articles made me realize that the real danger is the content that looks perfect but is actually full of mistakes or fake citations. Vice pointed out that some AI-generated references don’t even exist, but because they sound professional and look properly formatted, people trust them more easily. I think this kind of "fake authority" is very dangerous. Most readers won't double-check every reference, and volunteers have to spend a lot of time catching these hidden problems. After reading this, I understand more why many experienced Wikipedia editors are skeptical of AI. It’s not because they hate new technology — it’s because they truly care about the long-term trust and quality of the platform.


3. Question or Critique

One thing I really wonder about is: since AI involvement seems unavoidable, should Wikipedia make it mandatory to clearly mark which parts are AI-assisted? Or at least show it in the edit history, so that future editors know to be extra careful when checking those sections? Right now, AI and human edits are mixed together, and it’s impossible to tell the difference. This not only makes it harder for editors but also slowly weakens the trust of readers.

Personally, I think instead of ignoring the problem, Wikipedia should create clear rules for AI-generated content. For example, maybe AI could only be used for basic drafts, and the final text must be reviewed by at least two human editors.

There’s also a bigger question in my mind—Wikipedia has always been about "anyone can edit." But if AI becomes part of "anyone," what unique value do human editors still bring? Will Wikipedia in the future turn into an endless "battle" between people and machines? This is what worries me the most after thinking about it.

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