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