Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, has long been a valuable source of information. However, ensuring the accuracy of the content can be a challenge. To address this issue, researchers have developed an AI system called SIDE that aims to verify the credibility of primary sources cited on Wikipedia and even suggest new ones.
SIDE operates under the assumption that claims on Wikipedia are accurate, allowing it to assess the validity of sources but not independently verify the claims themselves. In a study, participants showed a preference for the AI’s suggested citations over the original ones in 70% of cases. SIDE also recommended sources that were already used as primary references on Wikipedia 50% of the time, aligning with human annotators’ recommendations in 21% of cases.
This AI tool has the potential to streamline the work of Wikipedia editors and moderators in validating the accuracy of entries. However, its proper deployment is crucial for its effectiveness, according to computational communication scientist Aleksandra Urman. While SIDE can identify citations that don’t comply with Wikipedia’s standards, the ultimate judgment lies with the Wikipedia community.
Testing revealed that Wikipedia users neither favored the AI-suggested references nor the original ones, with twice as many users opting for neither. It suggests that users may still prefer to independently seek out relevant citations online.
Despite its potential, the AI system has limitations. It focuses primarily on web page references, while Wikipedia relies on various sources such as books, scientific articles, images, and videos. Additionally, anyone can contribute references to Wikipedia, potentially introducing bias.
The researchers behind SIDE acknowledge that alternative programs may surpass their current design in terms of quality and speed. Furthermore, the study’s scope may be limited due to the dynamics and biases inherent in Wikipedia.
The use of AI in fact-checking has the potential to combat misinformation on platforms like Wikipedia and social media. However, there is still much room for advancement in this field.
