Week7 - Questions about AI and Wikipedia (Park Chaebin 박채빈)

 Assignment 1: When you search for information, do you prefer to use AI or Wikipedia? Why?

-> I prefer using Wikipedia when searching for information. Wikipedia provides in-depth content with clearly cited sources, which makes it more reliable. It’s especially helpful when writing assignments or formal documents because the information is well-structured. On the other hand, AI offers quick, summarized answers and can combine information from various sources. It’s useful when I’m short on time or need to understand a concept quickly, but when I need accurate and objective information, I tend to trust Wikipedia more.


Assignment 2: Should AI be used to create Wikipedia articles? Read https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/chatgpt-wikipedia-articles.html and https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bdba/ai-is-tearing-wikipedia-apart and let me know your thoughts

Bonus points: ask the same question to AI and compare your answers (you can do this for all subsequent questions in this module)

-> After reading the two articles, I think using AI supportively is acceptable when creating Wikipedia articles, but it should not be used to lead the writing process. The Slate article points out that while AI can write fluent sentences, there can be issues with accuracy and reliability. The Vice article was interesting in that it showed how AI use has sparked significant debates within the Wikipedia community.  

I believe it’s more appropriate to limit AI to supportive roles such as summarizing, editing suggestions, or grammar correction, rather than content generation.


<Bonus points>

AI’s answer (summary) AI can be useful in writing Wikipedia articles, but due to concerns about accuracy and sourcing, human editors are essential. The best approach is collaboration between humans and AI.



Assignment 3: What is Wikipedia community doing about AIs? Read Artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects, Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup, and let me know what is interesting/surprising

-> It was interesting to note that Wikipedia is not just wary of AI tools, but is also developing and actively experimenting with them. In addition, the Wii Project AI Cleanup is working on separately classifying and reviewing AI-generated content, which is impressive in that it is moving toward allowing some of the AI's help while maintaining quality.



Assignment 4. Use ChatGPT to generate a Wikipedia article on the same topic as your Wikipedia project (or another topic you find interesting). Compare them. How good of a job ChatGPT is doing?

-> The document generated by ChatGPT was fluent in sentence composition and well-organized in general. However, the disadvantage was that there was no source and the accuracy of the information was not as reliable as Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia documents contained specific statistics, history, and information on related organizations.

In conclusion, ChatGPT is useful for drafting or summarizing content, but there are still limitations to creating Wikipedia-level encyclopedia content.



Assignment 5: Read this article and use the tool described there (STORM) to generate a Wikipedia article. Is it better than ChatGPT?

-> The article introduces STORM, an automated tool for generating Wikipedia articles. STORM creates articles based on reliable sources such as academic papers and news reports.

One of STORM’s most convenient features is that its article format and structure closely follow Wikipedia standards, and it automatically includes citations. In contrast, while ChatGPT produces text that is very natural and fluent, it does not strictly follow Wikipedia’s formatting rules, does not provide clear citations, and the accuracy and reliability of the sources used are not always guaranteed—meaning additional verification is necessary.

In conclusion, STORM is more suitable than ChatGPT for generating draft articles that align with Wikipedia’s style and standards.


Assignment 6: Ask AI how you can use it to help Wikipedia. Then consider the practicality of the answers. Can you use one or more of the suggestions AI offers? If so, try to do it and demonstrate it in class together with your answer.

->  ChatGPT suggested these topics to help Wikipedia.

* Drafting documents

* Proofreading for errors

* Providing summaries

* Suggesting related images

* Proposing topics and recommending link connections


Assignment 7: Can you use AI to generate an image that could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article? See our media activity (Assignment 5) for a list of articles that need images.

-> AI can generate images for Wikipedia articles. However, Wikipedia's image policy emphasizes copyright issues, accuracy, and sourcing, so AI-generated images must be based on verified sources and accurately represent the topic.

Comments

  1. Jo HyeonSeongApril 15, 2025 at 12:24 AM

    I have a question in a similar vein to the cleanup tool mentioned in question 3.
    Aside from the one that impressed you, what tool would you most like to use to improve your article?

    ReplyDelete

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