That would be good, as I imagine that wikipedia is in survival mode these days, as less and less people visit their site directly
Even so more people indirectly benefit from its content
It's not in survival mode, they have a pretty large endowment and low dev spend they'd like to increase. The number of edits per week has been roughly steady for years, and their revenue per year has been increasing steadily. Their hosting costs are hyper-optimized and tiny; they spend much more on programmers and lawyers.
And a profit-maximizing one at that. They've got plenty of money but they need as much as possible, no different from a Zuck enterprise in that regard.
Pedantic without a point. A first-party ad for support of the platform is entirely a different category than running ads for other services, served from third-party ad companies.
The LLM weights are not tuned for truth, including citing sources, it's tuned for "doing as much as possible, as fast as possible, on your own". If you ask it for a source, it literally has to autocomplete one, it's not going to figure out which source is the most appropriate or authoritative as part of that text generation pass.
That would be good, as I imagine that wikipedia is in survival mode these days, as less and less people visit their site directly Even so more people indirectly benefit from its content
It's not in survival mode, they have a pretty large endowment and low dev spend they'd like to increase. The number of edits per week has been roughly steady for years, and their revenue per year has been increasing steadily. Their hosting costs are hyper-optimized and tiny; they spend much more on programmers and lawyers.
Wikipedia is not supported by ads and site views.
The donation banner is an ad.
And a profit-maximizing one at that. They've got plenty of money but they need as much as possible, no different from a Zuck enterprise in that regard.
Pedantic without a point. A first-party ad for support of the platform is entirely a different category than running ads for other services, served from third-party ad companies.
And is their rake on that correlated with site views? I'd guess not so linearly like it is with ad impressions. It is a different business model.
On the same note, I wonder why AI almost never gives me links to Wikipedia. Do they have it in training data without any attribution?
It feels like the distribution of sources/links it outputs is 33% Reddit, 33% Random blog, 33% Not Found.
> I wonder why AI almost never gives me links to Wikipedia
Users on Reddit say…
The LLM weights are not tuned for truth, including citing sources, it's tuned for "doing as much as possible, as fast as possible, on your own". If you ask it for a source, it literally has to autocomplete one, it's not going to figure out which source is the most appropriate or authoritative as part of that text generation pass.