About a decade ago, I read the history of AIDS on Wikipedia. It was a very informative (and satisfying) 20 minute read.

Now it's pages and pages and pages of text: probably factual, but not a satisfying read. It feels like it's for a different audience, and it's not satisfying to read.

Is it AI generated? I don't know for sure, but it feels like either someone (or something)'s missing the point of who Wikipedia's audience is; or that someone is following an agenda, (or that there's an edit war going on between dueling agendas and the facts are added to drown out the "AIDS is a consequence of bad morals" agenda.)

▲

flexagoon 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being as detailed as possible is its goal. Simple English Wikipedia exists for shorter easier to read versions of articles. Generally though, turning a complex topic into a fun easy read is the goal of good scientific journalism, which is also important but a separate effort from an encyclopedia.

	▲	keiferski 36 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. The point is to condense an entry as much as possible while being thorough enough to cover most relevant information.
	▲	Clamchop 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Encyclopedias are for summaries, not maximal detail. For that, you look at the source material.
	▲	rubito 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Just you know but „Simple $language” is made for accessibility, that is for people who have a mental disability or folks who suffered a stroke.
	▲	cj 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm normally against conspiracy theories and BS like this, but... There's a pretty stark difference between the first few paragraphs of the HIV/AIDS page and the first few paragraphs of the Type 2 Diabetes page. Both are "factual", but when I read the HIV/AIDS page, I feel like someone is trying to convince me "HIV is not a bad disease".

▲

raincole 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it has anything to do with AI. Wikipedia has been like that for at least a decade for me.

▲

tomaskafka 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Same feeling here - not sure if it’s AI, or zealous wikipedians + incentives that make addition easy but editing and pruning means stepping on many other writers turf, but I used to enjoy reading articles, while now many are more useful as “information fodder” for LLM to summarize and interpret.