Wikipedia Wisely Downgrades CNET Reliability Score After Lazy AI Screw Ups
from the sorry-you're-no-longer-to-be-trusted dept
We’ve noted repeatedly how early attempts to integrate “AI” into journalism have proven to be a comical mess, resulting in no shortage of shoddy product, dangerous falsehoods, and plagiarism. It’s thanks in large part to the incompetent executives at many large media companies, who see AI primarily as a way to cut corners, assault unionized labor, and automate lazy and mindless ad engagement clickbait.
The folks rushing to implement half-cooked AI at places like Red Ventures (CNET) and G/O Media (Gizmodo) aren’t competent managers to begin with. Now they’re integrating “AI” with zero interest in whether it actually works or if it undermines product quality. They’re also often doing it without telling staffers what’s happening, revealing a widespread disdain for their own employees.
After CNET repeatedly published automated dreck, Wikipedia has taken the step of no longer ranking the formerly widely respected news site as a “generally reliable” news source. As Futurism notes, the website’s crap automated content crafted by fake automated journalists increasingly doesn’t pass muster:
“Let’s take a step back and consider what we’ve witnessed here,” a Wikipedia editor who goes by the name “bloodofox” chimed in. “CNET generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some ‘corrections’ followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it,” they added, alluding to the time that CNET’s then-Editor-in-Chief Connie Guglielmo — who now serves as Red Ventures’ “Senior Vice President of AI Edit Strategy” — disparagingly referred to journalists who covered CNET’s AI debacle as “some writers… I won’t call them reporters.””
Of course CNET was already having credibility problems long before AI came on the scene. The website, like many “tech news” websites, increasingly acts more of an extension of gadget marketing departments than an adult news venture. CNET editorial standards have long been murky, as exemplified by that whole CES Dish Network award scandal roughly a decade ago.
Things got worse once CNET was purchased by Red Ventures, which has been happy to soften the outlet’s coverage to please advertisers, and, like most modern media companies, sees journalism not as a truth-telling exercise, but as a purely extractive path toward chasing engagement at impossible scale.
That sentiment is everywhere you currently look, as a rotating crop of trust fund failsons drive what’s left of U.S. journalism into the soil. These folks see journalism as an irrelevant venture, and they’re keen to turn it into a sort of automated journalism simulacrum; stuff that looks somewhat like useful reporting, but is predominantly an unholy fusion of facts-optional marketing and engagement bait.
It’s great to see the folks at Wikipedia take note and act accordingly.
Filed Under: ai, automation, journalism, media, plagiarism, reporting, wikipedia
Companies: cnet, red ventures, wikipedia
Comments on “Wikipedia Wisely Downgrades CNET Reliability Score After Lazy AI Screw Ups”
It’s not like anything useful is lost when AI writes garbage, as opposed to humans writing garbage.
Re:
It’s all good so long as the advertisers continue to pay, I suppose. Because that is the sole purpose of the publication, creating a cash flow for some rich folk and the actual content matters little to them.
Re: Re:
I only disagree with one part of your statement. You didn’t use plural when using the word Publication. It’s most of them, not just this rag.
Re: Re: Re:
I was unaware this website used AI, are you implying such?
Re: Re: Re:2
“this” most likely refers to CNET
Re: Re: Re:3
Shhhh, he’s already got his anger boner going, let’s let him finish.
Re: Re: Re:4
Poe’s law and a lack of clairvoyance has lead to this grand faux pas, can we call it a poe pas?
Re: Re: Re:5
Or a Grand Pas. 😉
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m predicting that this is the best pun I’ll hear all week.
Re: Re: Re:2
This Rag = CNET and a majority of other media companies.
This was based on the context of the statement I was replying to.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, that’s how I took it.
I think this highlights the question, “What is the purpose of journalism?” If the sales side dominates, that’s fine, but then you’re no longer providing a service, you’re just exploiting a niche. Platforms these days are more important than outlets.
Re:
What is the purpose of a business endeavor?
One might look to their business model, corporate motto, self serving ads but in the end It’s All About the Benjamins unless it is a real non profit.
The Wikipedia community’s list of “perennial sources” makes for interesting reading. There’s a lengthy diatribe against Forbes.com “contributors”, for example. Know Your Meme and TV Tropes both apparently have come up often enough that it’s worth designating them “generally unreliable”.
The discussion that led to the downgrading of CNET can be found here.
Re:
know your meme is unreliable?
LOL, that’s some funny shit right there!
Re: Re:
Know Your Meme:
TV Tropes:
They’re both considered unreliable sources for Wikipedia due to user-generated content and self-publishing, regardless of whether the information contained within is accurate.
Re: Re: Re:
Can anyone tell me the source of most Wikipedia articles? lol
Re: Re: Re:2
source inception
try spinning a top, does it ever stop
Re: Re: Re:3
The top will stop spinning eventually, and here’s why that’s bad for Biden.
-“News” agencies.
Re: Re: Re:
So Wikipedia itself is unreliable?
That describes Wikipedia, the hypocritical bastards!
What happened to Connie Guglielmo?
She WAS, in my opinion, one of the more informed tech reporters 10-20 years ago. I didn’t always agree with her takes but she seemed reasonably good at her job and open to criticism/comments/etc. — which I sent along sporadically over the years.
Now apparently she’s just a shill for corporate overlords. What a pity. What a waste. I hope at least she’s being well-paid for selling out her principles and integrity to the highest bidder.
A shame
I remember waaay back, when I was using pretty much the only practical browser, Netscape 1.0, that CNET was a remarkable and reliable source for computer-related information that could not be obtained anywhere else. Everything changes. Giant, influential companies like Sears, Pan Am, the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Conestoga wagons, all faded away. But to watch this not so much fade away as devolve into trash is sad.
Re:
Enshittification seems to be entropy in the business world.
Life cycle of an entity unable to evolve its way out of the inevitable.
Nice work Karl...
It’s early, but so far “failsons” is leading by a length and a half for word of the year.
Works well as a synonym for “fuck ups” when you want to project a little more refinement
Re: Re:
I believe there is a crucial distinction. Anybody can be a “fuck up”, whether rich or poor. It takes wealth and privilege of being protected from the fiscal consequences of your actions to be a “failson”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The author seething that he’s replaceable as a blogger lol.
Re:
Yeah, that must be it, lmao.