internetter
This is the discussion for the deletion of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Do you see any attempts at erasure here? It looks to me like the process of consensus working well. Original nominator makes a well reasoned but poorly researched claim, leading to article improvement, a clear establishment that Savannah is indeed notable enough for inclusion, and the original nominator learning something new about the deletions process.
> There is, when you look for it, a careless and cocky tone that can creep into the verdicts of Wikipedia editors who have been doing the job for a long time. “This guy is a nobody. Delete him.” “I’ve got more followers on Instagram than he does.” “All we have here are stand-up comedy, opinion columns, being a guest or collaborator on some non-notable podcasts … This is more or less every twentieth person who lives in NYC.”
This tone could be improved, however looking at the surrounding context, I imagine the editors participating in these discussions are frustrated by the hundreds of articles on obviously non-notable people made by themselves or their publicist with no regard for the notability policies. I do not have access to the deleted pages as I am not an admin, however I speak from experience participating in many many AfDs and everything I've seen described in this wired article is consistent with my experience. Here are the pertinent discussions that the author fails to link, perhaps because it undermines their point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bio...
> One month after Simeonovski nominated Dimoska’s biography for deletion, he lost. The page was kept. “Given the bludgeoning, canvassing, and sockpuppetry evident here, this is a no consensus closure without prejudice against speedy renomination,” wrote an editor in a determination. “The arguments to delete here are stronger on the merits, but sufficient reasoned opposition exists that I do not see a consensus for deletion.” Obstinacy won the day, though Dimoska’s page now carries a disclaimer that it contains “promotional content.”
Again, seems as if the process is working as intended.
Only in uncontroversial cases. In most cases, there is a debate where consensus is formed on if there is enough information about a person / topic to warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is struggling as is with the amount of content. An article cannot be written for every person under the son.
> Wikipedia pages, for better or worse, matter to people. To be included is a validation of a life.
There are billionares without wikipedia articles. There are people who have saved thousands of people from death without wikipedia articles. The only thing that matters in getting a wikipedia article is sufficient coverage by reputable 3rd party sources, such that there is enough material to write an accurate, informative, and neutral article. You should not derive your worth by this metric.
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_you...
Indeed. And yet opting out is an even bigger loss.
I have found that on the level of an individual function, this might very well be the case. On the level of an entire system, it very quickly falls apart and you get a lot of redundancies which cause security, bug and performance recessions, because nobody has really solved the issue of AI understanding whole systems at the time of inference.
Right, but I suspect (the author did not link the library) that this was not what was happening. I suspect the Java mods looked at the library for a solid 30 seconds and it was immediately obvious there was heavy AI usage in a more negative way.
At work, I've frequently used AI to rapidly build MVPs. Then I get back to work and spend a lot of time on my own, with the help of AI, and with the help of code review from my teammates, raising the quality and correctness bar. Much longer than it would've taken if I just wrote it myself out of the gate, though there is still a net AI productivity gain because writing is just so so much faster.
All this is to say is that I do not care* if AI or a human wrote a library in actuality, but if it is obvious from the code and readme that an AI (or an amateur human) wrote it, I will reject the library because it is clear it is not up to the spec I demand. But tovalds can use AI all he wants in linux as long as the correctness of the output remains the same.
* perhaps I care slightly because on a more personal level, I do think its a little sad, though in a professional capacity I do not care.
What an insane assertion. While it is undeniable that AI has gotten good at writing code, there are absolutely times where it makes sense to reject it (for writing, at least), such as when a high degree of comprehension and correctness is required. People have been "productive" writing code by "hand" for over 50 years. This hasn't changed, though AI does in many cases incrementally improve productivity, it does not always and it does not mean not using it is inherently unproductive.
For instance, for many libraries such as the ones I use to access databases or do complex calculations, I would like it to, at the very least, not be immediately obvious the project was vibe coded. Would you have still been banned if it wasn't so obvious you had prompted your way through the whole library? If it is obvious you prompted blindly, how can the code be human quality?
> some guy off the street can type a prompt into AI, and produce better code than we could. It’s not fair.
AI rarely seems to write better code than humans. It certainly writes mostly functional code faster. But significant time is lost in review compared to human code in my professional experience.