this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024

139 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59377 readers

3960 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

139

Participants rated the same text presented in Wikipedia lower than in ChatGPT or Alexa for credibility (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 2 months ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Identical text perceived as less credible when presented as a Wikipedia article than as simulated ChatGPT or Alexa output. The researchers note that these results might be influenced by the fact that it is easier to discern factual errors on a static text page like a Wikipedia than when listening to the spoken audio of Alexa or watching the streaming chat-like presentation of ChatGPT.

However, exploratory analyses yielded an interesting discrepancy between perceived information credibility when being exposed to actual information and global trustworthiness ratings regarding the three information search applications. Here, online encyclopedias were rated as most trustworthy, while no significant differences were observed between voice-based and dynamic text-based agents.

Contrary to our predictions, people felt higher enjoyment [measured using questions like "I found reading the information / listening to the information entertaining"] when information was presented as static or dynamic text compared to the voice-based agent, while the two text-based conditions did not significantly differ. In Experiment 2, we expected to replicate this pattern of results but found that people also felt higher enjoyment with the dynamic text-based agent than the static text.

Edit: Added "for credibility" to title

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I wonder if Wikipedia could mitigate this to some degree by updating their UX. I don't particularly want them to, and I certainly don't want a "New Coke" Wikipedia. But the design is rather plain and "looks old" to a modern user.

And people are suckers for a friendly-looking starter like "Certainly!"

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They did recently, or at least within the last year or so. Naturally, I hate it. lol

[–] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I've seen the redesign too and not really sure how I feel about it 😂 there's a lot of additional whitespace and it kinds looks like a blown up mobile version of the site

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The whitespace and the popovers. I get really annoyed reading a page and accidentally bump the cursor over something and a popup preview covers up what I'm reading. Or I'll be scrolling with the keyboard and a linked word scrolls under the cursor and the popover appears. Then it triggers popovers on every word as I move the mouse out of the way.

Feels like navigating a mine field. That's the part I'm most split on: sometimes I find that useful, most times it's a nuisance.

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

linked word scrolls under the cursor and the popover appears

Nobody wants that. It's bug report worthy.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 2 months ago

How would you fix it? HTML hover triggers don’t care if you scrolled.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 2 months ago

Page previews are unrelated to and have been around before the redesign. You can turn it off by clicking on the cog in the corner of the preview. To avoid the minefield issue… just move your cursor outside the minefield? This is yet another thing limited width helps, but you can still have your cursor stay at the unibar.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 2 months ago

I made https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aaron_Liu/v22.css to fix that. Otherwise I adore the design.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

https://www.wikiwand.com/ is what your looking for, its basically a wrapper with a modern UI

If you visit the site straight from the web there may be ads but if you use the extension there shouldn’t be

They are also a leading donor to wikipedia so its not like they’re just stealing content for profit. You may indirectly do more to get money in wikipedia their hands then you do by visiting the main site.

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

from Wikiwand's description:

Welcome to Wikiwand, an AI-driven wiki aggregator created to enhance user experience on Wikipedia by streamlining knowledge consumption.

We integrate AI alongside, not as a replacement for, the full-contextual articles from Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary.

By leveraging cutting-edge AI technologies, Wikiwand helps users quickly grasp key points and related topics without the need to sift through lengthy articles.

oh how the mighty have fallen.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 2 months ago

I don’t use Wikiwand because I don’t like the interface, but IMO that’s just how they attract funding.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean yeah they do have an ai chat feature but i literally never used it and honestly forgot its there.

Honestly the quote from their site confuses me, i ve used since before ai buzz started and i have not noticed much difference so i am not sure what they mean with being ai drive, maybe just marketing?

Not a good look admittedly but i’d say it’s the actual product that counts, which really is just modern wikipedia ui.

[–] DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's modern alright, complete with an "AI tools sidebar" and a "please login" popup that takes up half the screen.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's no login popup and you can easily hide the sidebar, just like Wikipedia's skin.

[–] DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Ah, I must've clicked on a premium theme on the way in.

[–] stefenauris@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago

Love this extension <3

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 months ago

Make the page 15x more bloated with JavaScript popups and it'll be "modern".

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

Well, they could just have a wikipedia.org and old.wikipedia.org and have the option for it to redirect

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how you could do that while having it stay an encyclopedia.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not sure I follow you. An update of the visuals / presentation doesn't change the inherent nature of it. Books get republished with new dust jackets all the time.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

People liked the ChatGPT presentation because it slowly revealed the text (which also made errors harder to discern). To update and adapt it would be doing away with the encyclopedia format. If you want a ChatGPT presentation, just use ChatGPT or that OneWordReader thing.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

OK, now I understand. I think we're talking about different things here. Or I missed that point in the paper. I would not want that kind of thing for Wikipedia, I agree with you there.