That link clearly states they have no intention of replacing human content with AI.
It goes on to say they plan to use AI for moderation detection and flagging things for human review. That’s not a problem at all.
Oh and accountable Britannica has an entire forward facing AI for users to directly get misinformed by. https://www.britannica.com/chatbot (it’s just a wrapper for ChatGPT).
Not all AI use is bad, and it sounds to me like you didn’t read that article itself. They have no desire or intention to use AI in a way that directly effects the information on the site, how it’s presented to visitors or to use it in a way that would manipulate how articles are edited.
The only potential note is translation, but translation is such a massive undertaking that by providing a means to discuss and interact between languages, the information becomes more broadly available and open to correction as needed by native speakers.
Also, Britannica does employ the use of AI within their own system as well, even providing a chatbot by which to ask questions and search for information. It is, in this way, more involved than Wikipedia’s goals.
In my case, I simply ended up buying a subscription to Brittanica, which I started using instead. I just don’t trust wikipedia in this era. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/
If an ‘information source’ is planning to start using AI, I’m going to go with one that has some accountability.
Such a disingenuous take.
That link clearly states they have no intention of replacing human content with AI.
It goes on to say they plan to use AI for moderation detection and flagging things for human review. That’s not a problem at all.
Oh and accountable Britannica has an entire forward facing AI for users to directly get misinformed by. https://www.britannica.com/chatbot (it’s just a wrapper for ChatGPT).
Using it for “moderation” would be…not sure why they’d need to “detect” moderation.
Perhaps you’ve phrased this poorly.
Not all AI use is bad, and it sounds to me like you didn’t read that article itself. They have no desire or intention to use AI in a way that directly effects the information on the site, how it’s presented to visitors or to use it in a way that would manipulate how articles are edited.
The only potential note is translation, but translation is such a massive undertaking that by providing a means to discuss and interact between languages, the information becomes more broadly available and open to correction as needed by native speakers.
Also, Britannica does employ the use of AI within their own system as well, even providing a chatbot by which to ask questions and search for information. It is, in this way, more involved than Wikipedia’s goals.
Yeah, a bit rich for them to be complaining about a technology they’re also planning on installing and using themselves.