We often write, somewhat stressed, that AI is a threat to us and that
the accusation us having a bias in our articles hurts our credibility.
I think we should look at our reality with another view. We have by now
a huge number of very good articles on entities being typical
encyclopedian, like oxygen or Stockholm. AI will not create better
articles and no one calls them biased. And we have a huge number of very
dull articles, like all the lakes in Canada, where AI can not produce
anything as good, and no one calls them biased.
For the one called biased I have found they represent about 0,01% of
all, and when I talk with readers, they anyway say they do not trust
Wikipedia (based on the subject, not the actual content) on these
entries and the proportion of readers finding fact on these things in
Wikipedia compared with other sources are l relative low (specially
compared with the typical encyclopedian entries). Why do we spend so
much energy on these few articles that anyway gives us very little or
no/negative credit? I half seriously on my home wiki is trying to launch
the concept of the "dull Wikipedia". Where we write very short articles,
with only dull basics, of these controversial subjects and also avoid
the juicy content of of individuals even if it takes a lot of volume in
media.
Why not concentrate and be proud of the thing we are best in.
Noncontroversial standard encyclodedan entries, including marginal
subjects? And leave the controversial subjects to the media, and the
subjects where AI excels in to that realm? And forget concept like
click rate. And be proud to the good we are doing
Anders