Do you mean you rigorously went through a hundred articles, asking DeepSeek to summarise them and then got relevant experts in the subject of the articles to rate the quality of answers? Could you tell us what percentage of the summaries that were found to introduce errors then? Literally 0?

Or do you mean that you tried having DeepSeek summarise a couple of articles, didn’t see anything obviously problematic, and figured it is doing fine? Replacing rigorous research and journalism by humans with a couple of quick AI prompts, which is the core of the issue that the article is getting at. Because if so, please reconsider how you evaluate (or trust others’ evaluations of) information tools which might help or help destroy democracy.

I am not from the USA (or any other part of the American continent for that matter). In a thread about protests against fascism in the US, taking place in the US, I think it’s fair to assume the “you” refers to US citizens. If there was a thread about Brazilian politics I would assume a similar post refers to Brazilians and that’s fine IMO. US exceptionalism is real and no doubt many US Lemmy users also fall into that trap, but this particular post just doesn’t seem problematic to me.

Well, a considerable proportion of these users are likely trolls/propagandists trying to fracture the non-fascists even more. It’s worth remembering that many people who protested against the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel voted for them anyway because they thought it was still the better alternative. There are true assholes in the world too of course, including pro-palestine ones, there are in any movement, but there is a risk that they are exaggerated and made to seem more common through the work of propagandists.

What would you then consider to be a “reliable source of information”? It sounds like your criteria for that are so high that it’s unlikely anything would reach up to that level. After all, should we ever trust any source as “the ultimate source of facts”? If all you wanted to point out was that noone can absolutely trust all of Wikipedia then fine I guess, but I would hope and doubt almost anyone here would have that mindset.

I would also say that many Wiki pages have a mix of overall neutral or positive-leaning text about the subject while e.g. a criticism section includes very good negative-leaning info. As an example, the Disney page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) has mostly neutral or positive information about the company, no doubt much of which is written by Disney fans. But it also has a good and sometimes savage criticism and controversies section. I have of course seen Wiki articles that are very skewed, but I’ve also seen very skewed research articles, lexicon entries etc. Wikipedia’s rules and the community of moderators trying to apply them as best as they can gives it a better chance than many other sources to correct in time at least.

Another point is that less and less counts as “the most generic of things”. The basic facts of biological development, evolution, even meteorology and chemistry are being increasingly questioned with nonsense. There is an immense value in all the hard work poured into improving, spreading and preserving that “generic” information. Wikipedia is a collective treasure shared with all the world. It shouldn’t be taken as gospel, nothing should like you point out, but despite its imperfections it’s worth so, so much.