Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-09-26

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2024-09-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? (5,182 bytes · 💬)

Well, I liked the Lincoln/Anachronism image. Other than that I didn't see 1 AI image here that I liked or would have found useful in any encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there's a disagreement to whether the image should be included at Twin paradox. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

3 No discussion of diffusion engine-created images is complete without noting that the companies that own and control such programs rest their software on a foundation of unpaid labor: the unlicensed use of artists' creative work for training the software. The historical Luddites were smeared as technophobes as a way to deflect their concerns about labor expropriation by a wealthy class who held the means of production, and at least this 'Luddaite' thinks we as a project should stay far away from these images when there are still all too many unresolved issues around labor and licensing underlying much of the software involved. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Willy's Chocolate Experience one is the only one that clearly belongs here, since part of that fiasco was that it used AI art and AI scripts for pretty much everything it did. Listenbourg seems to be an attempt to use AI to generate things similar to things seen elsewhere on the internet that were generated by AI, which feels a step too far, and the rest... I mean, there's moral reasons to object to AI, but perhaps a more convincing argument on Wikipedia is a variant of the problem with the scientific images I lambasted: It gives the illusion that thought was put into it. For example, does the illustration for Dagon really illustrate that short story? No, it doesn't illustrate anything that happens in it. Does the AI image of John F. Kennedy actually add anything? And so on. I'd rather have an illustration by a Wikipedian where we can presume that each element is at least using what the user knows about the subject, not just an attempt to generate an image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

unlicensed use of artists' creative work for training the software [sic] - The idea that a license is generally legally required for training AI models is currently a popular talking point among those who argue for the perceived business interests of the copyright industry. But it is much less accepted among actual legal experts. Yes, there are lots of lawsuits and some may eventually succeed on some aspects, but most have not been going well for the plaintiffs so far (see e.g. "Another claim that has been consistently dismissed by courts is that AI models are infringing derivative works of the training materials.")

I also think the labor rights framing is really misguided. For example because is is just empirically wrong to conceive these conflicts as copyright owners = scrappy artist laborers vs. AI "companies" = super rich mega corporations. Regarding the first group: Have you ever heard of Getty Images, Disney or Elsevier, widely admired for their super ethical practices? Regarding the latter: One of the first targets of the current lawsuits regarding AI image generation has been LAION, a nonprofit (German eingetragener Verein) with the central mission to democratize AI and make it publicly available.

See also Cory Doctorow on this topic, e.g. [1], who is both a professional "creative" himself (earning his living as a writer) and has long been a vocal labor rights advocate, well before the current AI debates.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is fascinating to see these two topics side-by-side. In general it asks us what images in our articles are for. As per other commenters, I'm happy see AI images on Wikipedia be minimized as much as possible. I am quite fond of the use of paintings, though I do worry about a certain European bias in them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these images. I have removed some of them on the French wiki and labelled other as AI generated in their caption on the articles. Skimel (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

In the media: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, and give up names of editors (2,669 bytes · 💬)

It's interesting that "privacy infringing laws" are considered "a significant issue", as well as "privacy enhancing laws" like Germany's "right to be forgotten." Is it possible that the WMF, Wikimedians at large, and the open knowledge community are seeing the negative impact of various jurisdictions, and not the positive? I would fall out of the clouds if the opposite was the case, as I'm semi-reliably informed the Germans say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC).

• Azerbaijan literally jails people who disagree with the ruling dynasty (sorry, democratically elected president). I've disagreed with solavirum in the past but I hope nothing bad happens to our Azerbaijani editors. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What had happened in India and Azerbaijan should concern WMF more than what it is today. With what’s going on around the world today, we could clearly see that government overreach, censorship, and monitoring may tend to increase. Discussions should be clearly be done to balance between security and privacy. At this point Wikipedia tend to be on “security” as we disallow proxies/VPNs and we logged the IPs and the emails of the editors, but what happened if the government demanded Wikipedia to hand over the data of its editors? Most of the Wikipedia editors are living on countries with good record of freedom of speech, but what happened to those that live on countries that have questionable freedom of speech? Like this case in India - would WMF be willing to close up shop in India just for the sake of protecting few of its editors? Hopefully WMF took this issue more seriously. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN: Absolutely not the point, but while you're Wikipediaing poison snakes, make sure to visit List of dangerous snakes, which is some damn fine en-wiki work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? (1,279 bytes · 💬)

The WMF releases two new bulletins for August and September

@Soni and Oltrepier: Curious about this part:

the new WMF Global Advocacy team, which was sworn in back in August

Where do the bulletins say that this is a "new" team? It has existed under that name since 2022 (and has been led by the same person with the same job title since 2021). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I see my mistake. I read [2] from the Bulletin but did not realise it never said "New". So I mistakenly wrote about them as a "new team". Thank you, I'll correct the article now. Soni (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing (299 bytes · 💬)

• Thanks for writing this, and have a nice time as admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors (756 bytes · 💬)

If Chat GPT wasn't prone to hallucinating then this would not have happened. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What does this comment have to do with this Signpost article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus (1,018 bytes · 💬)

• I'm fine with the name being removed on the grounds that BLP rules still apply to recent deaths and that quality RSes stopped using it. However I'm worried about this case emboldening the Indian legal system to bully Wikipedia. The laughably misinformed executive causes enough problems as is, and now the judiciary... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) P.S., fun fact about the case in the link: It was the ruling government's own acolytes that started the spate of libel that was eventually added, then quickly removed by RC patrol, from the page in question. It's kinda like if the teacher's kid beat you up at lunch and then the teacher berated you later for your clothes being torn.