For most flagged articles, nearly every cited sentence failed verification

Re:For most flagged articles, nearly every cited sentence fa... by asyncadventure on Saturday January 31, 2026 @08:00PM (#46842589)

The systematic verification failure reveals something deeper: we've built an information ecosystem where plausible-sounding sources carry more weight than actual verification. The real tragedy isn't just AI content farms polluting Wikipedia, but how this exposes our existing blind spots in citation validation - many human editors were already citing sources they never properly read.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For most flagged articles, nearly every cited sentence fa... by HPsquared on Saturday January 31, 2026 @08:04PM (#46842609)

This goes much further than Wikipedia, it's just particularly visible there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For most flagged articles, nearly every cited sentence fa... by gwern on Saturday January 31, 2026 @09:07PM (#46842954)

Thanks for the LLM comment, but that's dumb. If the problem really was as bad with humans (it obviously is not), then OP wouldn't've happened:

> For most of the articles Pangram flagged as written by GenAI, nearly every cited sentence in the article failed verification.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For most flagged articles, nearly every cited sentence fa... by chr15m on Saturday January 31, 2026 @09:39PM (#46843113)

Agree. I'm curious about the human contribution baseline.

[ Parent | on HN ]