Research talk:Newsletter/2024/August

See also the discussion page of the Signpost version of this issue

I see the article as problematic in the way it claims that the format in the experiment is in line with Wikipedia. The article format is just plain text with no hyperlinks, neither intrawiki links nor to external credible sources. For Wikipedia, the main way of raising credibility is via inline external references to credible sources. Intrawiki links may possible also contribute to (perceived) credibility. I see the same problem with missing references and hyperlinks in "Do You Trust ChatGPT? – Perceived Credibility of Human and AI-Generated Content" (Figure 1 panel c). Furthermore, the article ("Conversational presentation mode increases...") writes the phrase "a static text-based online encyclopedia like Wikipedia". It bothers me. Wikipedia is an interactive resource where you can following links and edit text in a collaborative way. In a peer-review, I would have been reluctant to accept their claim that the presentation format is like Wikipedia. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Reply