AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability

Re:AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability by SoftTalker on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:05AM (#37963986)

Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources. You could be the inventor of a thing, but you'd be unqualified to write a wikipedia entry about it. You'd have to get someone else to write about it, get that published, and then cite that in wikipedia.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability by fsckboy on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:19AM (#37964032)

>Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources

wikipedia accepts published papers from journals as references, despite that those are primary sources. (I thought they originally didn't, but they do now)

How would this guy's theorems be on wikipedia if he hadn't published them? Wikipedia is leery of people editing "their own page" in the sense of conflict of interest, but cleary if you are correcting a published theorem, that is entirely within bounds. You could say on the Talk page "I published this theorem, wikipedia has it wrong."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability by sheepshear on Saturday October 21, 2023 @01:28AM (#37964333)

There was plenty written about it. Whoever wrote the article was confidently incorrect about how they interpreted what was written.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability by mhh__ on Saturday October 21, 2023 @02:09AM (#37964484)

There is a talk page where you're supposed to hash this kind of thing out.

What was the equation?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AI tidies up Wikipedia's references – and boosts reliability by sheepshear on Saturday October 21, 2023 @02:32AM (#37964590)

He used the talk page. I have it in my notes in a box in storage. I'll dig it up probably in the next 10-20 years, if you can wait.

[ Parent | on HN ]