It’s actually quite amusing to me that Wikipedia is an authority on “reliability”. It makes perfect sense, but can you imagine explaining that to a public school teacher twenty years ago?

This is the best news. It’s one thing for AI to assist, it’s another to replace. Fuck em

January 2023, Futurism brought widespread attention to the issue and discovered that the articles were full of plagiarism and mistakes. […] After the revelation, CNET management paused the experiment, but the reputational damage had already been done.

So the “AI experiment” is not active anymore. But the damage is already done.

It was also new to me that Wikipedia puts time-based reliability qualifiers on sources. It makes sense of course. And this example shows how a source can be good and reliable in the past, but not anymore - and differentiating that is important and necessary.