Tilman Bayer

SS Edmund Fitzgerald - Wikipedia

Not according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmu... , which cites many changes that were implemented as result of investigations by USCG and NTSB - most of which did not involve NOAA, e.g. mandating use of depth finders, installing a positioning system and radio beacons, etc.

I'm sorry, but this analysis of "the sourcing used by Grokipedia" is essentially bogus - it's based on major misconceptions of how such AI systems work. I tried to explain at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...

Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review The study sought to review recent literature regarding use of speech recognition (SR) technology for clinical documentation and to understand the impact of SR on document accuracy, provider efficiency, institutional cost, and more. We searched 10 ...

Then again, clinicians' use of speech recognition goes back to the 20th century (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC... ), so it's quite possible that this TikToker's "My provider used AI to take notes" j'accuse could already have applied to the midwife who assisted when she was born 😉

(And it also doesn't mention that psychotherapy notes receive special protection under HIPAA: www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-pr... - so are we sure that HIPAA lets "Data Brokers Make Money Off" these too?)

Oh, I agree re anonymization and data brokers in general.
However, I thought you were warning about AI-specific privacy problems. The article you linked is from 2016 and does not mention AI at all.

Re privacy: So you're asserting that the already widely used scribes by e.g. Abridge, Nuance DAX (Microsoft), Suki, Nabla, Ambience/Epic all violate HIPAA? dmclawllc.com/2025/08/12/u...
Or are you proposing new, stricter guardrails beyond HIPAA?

... which means that nobody can be held accountable for this quote 😁

Musk had talked about "rewrit[ing] Wikipedia" last month already (as we also mentioned twice in the Signpost en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped... ). So, not sure where this "called it" comes from.
Besides, it's also the approach taken previously by Conservapedia, Citizendium (initially), Ruwiki etc.

Funny that they removed "harassment campaign" from the first sentence, but left it in the URL grokipedia.com/page/Gamerga...

Wikipedia - Wikipedia

This seems to confound using Wikipedia for training LLMs with the direct, attributed republication or adaption of Wikipedia content, which has been going on for almost a quarter century: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped... ("Thousands of 'mirror sites' exist that republish content from Wikipedia")

All good (I wasn't there, although I did spend a bit of time helping to cover it in our little community newsletter en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped... ). Hope you're well too!

In a quick scan of the paper, I don't see anything about the funding or organizing of conferences, workshops and the like. Would you consider these possible avenues of influence in this area too?

The author is on here too 😉 bsky.app/profile/mano...

I'm aware of the timing. It's more about your sources seemingly including none of the several Wikimedians at the event who apparently had at least some knowledge of the issue.
If you or another journalist had broken that story, that might also have relieved SFR of the burden of breaking the ANPDP.

Like many Wikimedians, I generally appreciate how your reporting is better informed than others thanks to your connections with (parts of) the Wikipedia community. Can't help noticing though that here you missed a major angle of the story that was revealed yesterday: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...

As a longtime Wikimedian, I still remember you being seen as an ally of the free knowledge movement; you even used to be on the WMF advisory board.

Very sad to see you have joined the anti-fair-use bandwagon and engage in full-throated advocacy for the business interests of the copyright industry.

Helping researchers secure their future @pessimistsarc.bsky.social spot

They fixed this one too in the current version (but the Wayback Machine confirms your screenshot: web.archive.org/web/20251016... )

In case anyone wants to check further, the earliest snapshot on the Internet Archive is web.archive.org/web/20251016... (unlike arXiv, agidefinition.ai doesn't preserve a revision history...)

Don't forget banner donation revenues, which might even be more affected than volunteer edits per the (quite preliminary) findings from one of the aforementioned papers: meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Researc...
Could create some interesting and so far unexamined WMF-community dynamics and possible COIs

Not very surprising. But I'm quite curious how WMF determined causality: "We believe that these declines reflect the impact of generative AI and social media".
This can be quite difficult; I covered several papers that tried to do that (for earlier timespans) at
meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Researc...?

YouTube video by Boston Dynamics Atlas | Partners in Parkour

Maybe you are right about this particular model, but this Boston Dynamics video with some very similar tricks is from 2021: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4D...

New User Trends on Wikipedia Isiwal, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons In March, the Wikimedia Foundation shared about the global trends that are impacting our movement. These trends have continued to shape not only the Wikim…

"said in a blog post" - why is there no link? diff.wikimedia.org/2025/10/17/n...
What's @404media.co's policy on linking online sources that an article is quoting from at length?
A bit ironic in an piece that basically raises the alarm about search engines and chatbots failing to provide such links

Umm, your quote omits the preceding "And let me remind us all", re an earlier paragraph relating this to concrete facts:
"if you read the system card, you also see its signs of situational awareness have jumped ..."
You may prefer different terms to describe these facts, but it's an empirical claim.

Apropos this - half a year later, what's your overall sense about whether and how much this incident has helped increase the reach and/or reputation of Signal?

Accepted manuscript embargo periods Oxford University Press journals operate a range of self-archiving policies, allowing authors to make a version of their article available on their own websites

Done, thanks in advance!
However, you should also consider posting a freely accessible version. This journal allows you to do that for the "Accepted Manuscript" version (on a personal webpage, no embargo - see the link for "Integrative And Comparative Biology" at academic.oup.com/pages/open-r... )

Scientists no Longer Find Twitter Professionally Useful, and have Switched to Bluesky Synopsis. Social media has become widely used by the scientific community for a variety of professional uses, including networking and public outreach. For

Since you care about effective science communication and public outreach:
Is there a non-paywalled version of your paper? (Your publisher charges USD $44.00 for short-term access: academic.oup.com/icb/article-... )

So about 0.3%? (Given that according to bsky.jazco.dev/stats there are between 600,000 and 700,000 daily posters currently)

Thankfully we still have text, a medium in which fake information remains very difficult to create, which is why can trust anything written by anybody on the Internet without checking sources or such

Luddite - Wikipedia

So you're saying mechanical looms were initially unopposed...? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite...