Wikipedia always prioritizes "verified" editors over random one-timers. Even so, I've long since given up on trying to contribute. Even spelling error corrections get auto-reverted, it's no use at all

>>108275420
>>108275407
why use wiki when ai

>>108275407

maybe edit was seen necessary but was challenged as someone preferred old content

>>108275407
I remember fixing a spelling mistake few years back and it's still there

>>108275407
Is this the original version of this image?

>>108275479
yea

>>108275454
I would trust an AI based on Wikipedia alone more than AI trained on a bunch of literally who blogs + ai-generated slop

>>108275493
arent you trained on 4chan?

>>108275555
Human being =/= next word prediction algorithm

>>108275574
proof?

>>108275407
>make edit on Wikipedia with my John Smith account
>it gets deleted
>do the same edit with my Noah Goldstein account
>it gets accepted

I wish I can draw like that.

>>108275578
proof should be that humans invented the language that the ai writes in

>>108275407
same for 4chan, all depends on your 4chan_pass cookie nowadays

>>108275848
>>108275578

File: 1770527652452694.png (407.1 KB)

407.1 KB PNG

probably because most of the RecentChanges hawks will watch for tags like it being an ip edit, a visual edit, or the "suspicious" flags
having an extended-autoconfirmed account obviously makes you less likely to be suspicious
that is not particularly rocket science is it

>>108275493
bot

>>108277610
this. the guy who reverted me only does reversions. also, less than 2 minutes passed between posting and reverting, he had no time to check the references

>>108277610
I want a Lora of Wikipe-tan

>>108280386
theres a lot of people who grind recentchanges just to up their edit count and to feel superior by spamming {{uw2}} on peoples talkpages