Remember last year when we reported that it was owned by Red Ventures? CNET They secretly published dozens of AI-generated articles; Full of mistakes and plagiarism?
The revelation sparked a heated debate about the future of media in the age of AI. It also sparked a similarly passionate debate among Wikipedia editors. CNET Future content.
”CNetusually considered as ordinary technology [reliable source]has started an experimental run of AI-generated articles, but it’s riddled with errors,” Wikipedia editor David Gerard begins a January 2023 discussion thread on Wikipedia’s Trusted Sources forum. I am writing to. This forum brings together editors to determine whether a particular source is sufficiently reliable. For editors to cite.
Gerald went on to say that “so far the experiment is not going well, but it shouldn’t be that way,” and warned that “any articles that are now Wikipedia articles need to be removed.”
Gerald’s warning was posted on January 18, 2023, just days after the original story. CNETUtilization of AI.This comment started a discussion that eventually ended with CNET’s Wikipedia’s once strong rating of “generally reliable” has been demoted. One former Red Ventures employee told us this is a disastrous fall that could “significantly impact SEO efforts” and that publishers should consider before moving to his AI-generated content. It was also a wake-up call about the wider reputational implications.
“Let’s take a step back and consider what we witnessed here,” chimed in a Wikipedia editor named “Blood Fox.” ”CNET Generating tons of content with AI, listing some of it as written by humans (!), claiming it was all human-edited and vetted, then getting caught and then making some “corrections” ” and then attacked the journalists who reported on it. On top of that,” they added, alluding to the time. CNET’s Then-editor-in-chief Connie Guglielmo (now Red Ventures’ “senior vice president of AI editorial strategy”) referred to the journalists who interviewed her in a derogatory manner. CNET’s AI makes a big mistake: “Some writers…I wouldn’t call them reporters.”
but CNet is not the only one caught up in the scandal, which is another source of concern for Wikipedia editors. futurism Discover similar content on other Red Ventures sites bank rate and CreditCards.comand one former employee claimed that Red Ventures’ vast portfolio of higher education-focused websites had undisclosed AI content published.
This wasn’t the first time Red Ventures’ site faced credibility concerns on Wikipedia. Site owned by Red Ventures health line and point guy Both are currently on Wikipedia’s spam blacklist, the former for posting incorrect information and the latter for questionable ties to targeted credit card companies. Wikipedia volunteers were unaware of this.
“According to the reports we have seen so far, Blood Fox’s passionate denunciations continue, Red Ventures.”It’s clear that they’re implementing these tools and approaches across their portfolio, but they haven’t said exactly where or how. And why should you believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been transparent about these things at all and can be described as deceptive at best. And the company operates a large, SEO-focused content mill across its ecosystem, exactly like what you’ll see post-acquisition. CNET. ”
“It’s worth considering how they use their assets as a source of information,” the editors added.
The revelations came one after the other. In early February, Verge Alleges Red Ventures employee committed violation CNET’s They pressured publication staff to be more favorable to advertisers and threatened editorial ethics. This would be a further blow to the already tarnished public image of the beleaguered publication.
until then, CNET and bank rate Both companies “paused” their AI efforts and made major revisions. But the damage, at least in the eyes of Wikipedia editors, had already been done. By mid-February, editors had concluded that what CNET published after its 2020 sale to Red Ventures was no longer considered “generally reliable” and should be taken with a grain of salt.
In addition, they believe that everything published below: CNET The period from November 2022 to January 2023 should be considered “generally unreliable.”surely CNET’s Human journalists were doing quality work during that period. However, in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, the abysmal AI efforts negate the credibility of the entire publication.
“In November 2022, CNET “We have begun implementing an experimental AI tool that quickly generates articles filled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links in order to improve SEO rankings,” the notice reads. “More than 70 financial articles written by AI tools were published under the byline.”CNET Money Staff and Red Ventures issued corrections to more than half amid mounting pressure. CNET The company later announced it would stop using AI tools “for the time being,” but concerns about advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. ”
Wikipedia’s source guidelines include this impressive table summarizing the site’s views. CNET: said it was reliable before being acquired by Red Ventures, but the period captured using AI is unreliable and has suffered a “deterioration in editorial standards” since 2020 .
This won’t be the last time Wikipedia editors address this issue. CNET or the credibility of Red Ventures. This year, following a discussion about the current state of consumer technology sites owned by Red Ventures. ZDNET, an editor known as “Chess” opened a new thread to address the credibility of Red Ventures’ overall portfolio. To quote the story of AI: CNET and bank rateChess argued that Wikipedia should consider knocking down allegations of editorial ethics violations, etc. every Websites owned by Red Ventures have become less reliable.
“Editors shouldn’t be burdened with proving over and over again that Red Ventures ruined a site before they start taking down. They could easily buy or launch another site.” Chess argued in the opening feature published on January 24th, arguing that the quality was problematic. For his SEO-focused business at Red Ventures, the amount of content seems secondary to his model. “I think we need to focus on the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the source of the problem (spam networks).”
Some editors were quick to side with Chess.One of the co-signers, an editor identified as “The Kip,” wrote hours later: “AI-generated, often patently inaccurate content and SEO/sales/marketing-oriented with respect to the output and the previously taken decision. CNET and point guypretty simple blanket [change to generally unrelaiable]. ”
“It’s about time. Enough is enough,” agreed the familiar voice of Brad Fox, adding, “If it’s owned by Red Ventures, we’re going to go ahead and use it as hardware.” We need to identify it,” he added. [Reliable Sources] Failure. “
However, some people were not convinced.
“Frankly, it’s an overreaction to label an entire outlet as untrustworthy just because one writer or one editor soiled the bed,” the editor known as “JPxG” responded, “Doing it just because someone from another outlet owned by the same parent company soiled the bed” is medieval. ” JPxG later argued that such a system would provide a preemptive penalty standard of “guilty until proven innocent.”
Indeed, ownership changes, however frustrating or unfortunate, are a fact of life in the media world, and staff usually don’t have any say in it.Acquired Red Ventures CNET Acquired for $500 million in 2020 after merging with CBS — I bought CNET for $1.8 billion in 2010 — and Viacom.that a particular publication’s reputation for providing reliable information may be damaged; exclusively A sale to a new owner would be a total condemnation.
Still, Red Ventures is no passive champion. The company’s executives have touted the power of AI with almost fanatic enthusiasm.
“From now on,” CEO Rick Elias told employees at an all-hands meeting in July 2023. futurism I got the audio for “We Will Become AI.”
at least CNETthat commitment sounds pretty withering now.
”CNET is the world’s largest provider of unbiased technology-focused news and advice. ” CNET A spokesperson said of the Wikipedia demotion in an emailed statement. “We’ve been trusted for nearly 30 years because of our rigorous editorial and product review standards, and it’s important that we make that clear. CNET We are not actively using AI to create new content. Although we have no specific plans to restart, future efforts will be subject to our Public AI Policy. ”
“Furthermore, previous reports that we are under pressure to write favorably about advertisers are false and have unfairly affected the work and reputations of our staff,” the spokesperson added. “We stand behind the work we do, the quality of our content and the editorial integrity of our staff. CNET It operates as an independent organization within Red Ventures, led by an independent leadership team. ”
In the wake of CNET‘s AI drama saw staff form a union, citing AI and the threat it poses to their “jobs and reputations”. And for that reason, it’s worth repeating that Wikipedia’s editors have chosen not to be demoted. CNET’s Journalism before Red Ventures. in a will to CNET’s Despite its legacy as a trusted publication, its archive remains “generally reliable” by the standards of Wikipedia editors.
However, that feeling of tension speaks to the depths of my heart. CNET’s Recent wounds. According to several insiders, Red Ventures seems to be overwhelmingly focused on quantity over quality. At the end of the day, you’re trying to squeeze out the benefits of SEO. CNET The snowballing disaster shook the foundations of a brand built over decades of quality journalism.
“It is upsetting that Red Ventures’ decision has undermined the high-quality work of Red Ventures.” CNET’s Writer, editor, producer CNET The media union said in a statement that it was not aware of any changes to media credibility ratings on Wikipedia. “That’s why we’re fighting for a union contract with specific language to protect bylines, codify editorial standards, and implement certain guardrails around AI.”
Of course, Wikipedia editors are not the final authority in determining what qualifies as good journalism. However, their relegation CNET This is a cautionary tale for other media owners looking to implement AI in their newsrooms.
Hopefully, CNET You can claw back the goodwill of Wikipedia editors. However, it remains to be seen whether that will be possible under the Red Ventures umbrella. To add insult to injury, Red Ventures is currently CNETbut is having problems due to concerns about AI debacles.
“Our staff is dedicated to repairing the damage caused by management.” CNET “And to recovery,” the union statement continued. CNET’s Reputation as a trusted site. ”
Learn more CNET: CNET publisher struggles with sales amid AI scandal
