• zzx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Sorry, I should have clarified: they’d revert your change quickly, and your account would be banned after a few additional infractions. You think AI would be better?

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.

      I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.

      I think a medical textbook would be better.

      Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it’s not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.

      • ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        56 minutes ago

        Sorry but have to disagree. Look at the talk page on a math or science Wikipedia article, the people who maintain those pages are deadly serious. Medical journals and scientific publications aren’t intended to be accessible to a wider public, they’re intended to be bases for research - primary sources. Wikipedia is a digest source.

      • zzx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Well then we def agree. I still think Wikipedia > LLMs though. Human supervision and all that