I was talking primarily about readers, and I think the main point of the article was that it will become "irrelevant to younger generations of readers."
M
maxpool@mathstodon.xyz
@maxpool@mathstodon.xyz
Indlæg
-
This fairly dumb article in a magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers claims there's a "crisis" at Wikipedia because the editors rejected a push to have an AI summary on top of every Wikipedia article, -
This fairly dumb article in a magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers claims there's a "crisis" at Wikipedia because the editors rejected a push to have an AI summary on top of every Wikipedia article,Jemielniak is a long-time Wikipedia activist and has served three terms on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. He is also a professor who studies this specific area, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
The main point of the article, as I see it, is that Wikipedia has a structure geared toward older generations. Young people don't read long articles, and older generations tend to calcify the organization.
I agree with all of the above. This also explains why there are fewer young volunteers. You don't become a contributor if you don't read the articles, especially if the style feels outdated or inconvenient.
On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with projects that gradually decline in popularity while sticking to what the organization knows how to do. Wikipedia is losing readers and is becoming a more 'academic' and elite institution for new generations, but it still provides a valuable service, for those who read.
---
A collaborative society should not mean that collaboration must happen within a single institution.
Wikipedia’s content is not bound to the organization itself; Gen Z and Gen Alpha can create their own organizations and short-form or conversational interfaces using Wikipedia as a source.