Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!
(90 seconds later)
We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about “AI” on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.
Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they’re still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I’m wrong about that or the “rules” aren’t enforced very strongly.
The prompt engineering article has 61 sources. Why should it not exist? What’s your source for that?
If the vibe coding article violates the rules, nominate it for deletion and cite the rules then.
Please acquaint yourself with the definition of the word latter on your way to the egress.
no thx, nobody came here for you to assign them tedious homework
For posterity: English Wikipedia is deletionist, so your burden of proof is entirely backwards. I know this because I quit English WP over it; the sibling replies are from current editors who have fully internalized it. English WP’s notability bar is very high and not moved by quantity of sources; it also has suffered from many cranks over the years, and we should not legitimize cranks merely because they publish on ArXiv.
i’m more frustrated that NPOV has been forced into secondary positions behind reliable sources. just because a reliable source has said something does not justify its inclusion in an article where its inclusion would disturb the NPOV.
The number of sources isn’t really the issue; many of those are industry advertisements, such as blog posts on product pages, for instance. Out of the few that are papers, almost all are written exclusively by industry research teams — while that doesn’t on its own invalidate their results, it does mean that there’s a strong financial interest in the non-consensus view (in particular, that LLMs can be “programmed”). The few papers that have been peer-reviewed have extreme methodological flaws, such that there’s essentially almost no support for the article’s bombastic and extreme non-consensus claims.