Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply “bots”, that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks. In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each other’s edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action. “The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people,” said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. “Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.” The findings emerged from a study that looked at bot-on-bot conflict in the first ten years of Wikipedia’s existence. The researchers at Oxford and the Alan Turing Institute in London examined the editing histories of pages in 13 different language editions and recorded when bots undid other bots’ changes. They did not expect to find much. The bots are simple computer programs that are written to make the encyclopedia better. They are not intended to work against each other. “We had very low expectations to see anything interesting. When you think about them they are very boring,” said Yasseri. “The very fact that we saw a lot of conflict among bots was a big surprise to us. They are good bots, they are based on good intentions, and they are based on same open source technology.”[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/23/wikipedia-bot-editing-war-study[/url] War has changed.

This is awesome. How long until wikipedia becomes self aware and vaporizes our cities?

I absoultely hate this article because it gives 0 real examples of the bots in action. It just says WEEBBOT FOUGHT WITH NEEBBOT OVER NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTICLES LIKE "HOW TO NEEB" AND "HOW TO WEEB", and not going into the specifics other than "yeah their rules were different so they conflict" I expected something like "It kept editing this specific line over and over again, because weeb bot mistook it for vandalism and removed the edit, while neebbot kept restoring the edit because it's an actual quote that person said and thought the person who removed it was bias."

Ceasefires are for weak humans, bots fight forever. :v:

Here's an exceptionally better article made in september 2016 that actually describes what actually happens. It's shorter, to the point, and doesn't involve subtle scaremongering about self-driving cars. It even includes a link to the paper. [url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106749-the-wikipedia-bots-that-are-engaged-in-spats-that-never-end/[/url] [quote]Many of these edits are trivial. For example, links between versions of Wikipedia articles in different languages are frequently created and modified. But some involve flip-flopping between disputed terms. “We had bots which have been crawling around and changing all the references to ‘Palestine’ to ‘Palestine territory’,” says Yasseri. “Or bots going around and changing all the references to ‘Persian Gulf’ to ‘Arabian Gulf’.” Other bots would then change them back again.[/quote] Paper: [url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04285[/url] The paper itself isn't filled with scientific jargon, a high school graduate could read and process it. It's only 20 pages including graphs and citations.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51866418]Here's an exceptionally better article made in september 2016 that actually describes what actually happens. It's shorter, to the point, and doesn't involve subtle scaremongering about self-driving cars. It even includes a link to the paper. [url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106749-the-wikipedia-bots-that-are-engaged-in-spats-that-never-end/[/url] Paper: [url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04285[/url] The paper itself isn't filled with scientific jargon, a high school graduate could read and process it. It's only 20 pages including graphs and citations.[/QUOTE] Wow, your title really fits you to a T. :v: The 'scaremongering about self-driving cars' was actually made by one of the researchers involved with the paper. It's a suitable comparison to make as it talks about how important it is to make different AI work efficiently together, which is vital for self-driving cars to be safe.

[QUOTE=TheRealFierce;51866517]Wow, your title really fits you to a T. [/QUOTE] I don't get the title relevance. He just linked another article an explained why it was better.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51866418] The paper itself isn't filled with scientific jargon, a high school graduate could read and process it. It's only 20 pages including graphs and citations.[/QUOTE] I almost have enough patience to finish this post. 20 pages with citations and graphs will put me to sleep. [editline]23rd February 2017[/editline] It's strange how bots easily grow into something past their initial goal.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51866576]I don't get the title relevance. He just linked another article an explained why it was better.[/QUOTE] Mostly talking about his first comment. I don't really see the reason why the bots fought had to be given an explanation other than their rules are different. Not even the paper goes into more detail other than that, it's a pretty minor issue. I think the fact that the Guardian didn't even cite the paper they were discussing to be a much bigger issue.

[QUOTE=TheRealFierce;51866517]Wow, your title really fits you to a T. The 'scaremongering about self-driving cars' was actually made by one of the researchers involved with the paper. It's a suitable comparison to make as it talks about how important it is to make different AI work efficiently together, which is vital for self-driving cars to be safe.[/QUOTE] Except the technology in self-driving cars will be made by at most 5 different companies, and not thousands of freelance users who create bots as a hobby. Whether unintentional or unintentional, it comes off as scaremongering. I made a second post when I realised that it doesn't even link to the original research paper after examining every link, to see if it ever links to the article. Of course it not linking to the paper is a bigger issue than subtle scaremongering and it's very dry article, but it doesn't mean I can't point it out.

The technology in a self driving car is many times more complex than a Wikipedia put that replaces x phrase with y phrase. It's like saying we should be scared about cars breaking down because my toaster breaks down sometimes. There is a much higher level of effort that goes into something dangerous like a car. You can't extrapolate from it.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51866731]Except the technology in self-driving cars will be made by at most 5 different companies, and not thousands of freelance users who create bots as a hobby. Whether unintentional or unintentional, it comes off as scaremongering. I made a second post when I realised that it doesn't even link to the original research paper after examining every link, to see if it ever links to the article. Of course it not linking to the paper is a bigger issue than subtle scaremongering and it's very dry article, but it doesn't mean I can't point it out.[/QUOTE] I suppose so, but I still wouldn't call it scaremongering. I think there's something we can learn from the study on how we could make AI cooperate with each other. While there are somewhere like 5 companies that have developed the self-driving AI, I imagine there could arise issues where some cars may have different versions of the same AI. Not exactly an expert on self-driving cars, so there's may be some precautions that are put in place to prevent just that, that I am not aware of. [QUOTE=Mechanical Mind;51866908]The technology in a self driving car is many times more complex than a Wikipedia put that replaces x phrase with y phrase. It's like saying we should be scared about cars breaking down because my toaster breaks down sometimes. There is a much higher level of effort that goes into something dangerous like a car. You can't extrapolate from it.[/QUOTE] Well just like we can study lab rats to get a bigger picture for humans, I'll imagine the same could be done to the Wikipedia bots for more smarter AI. Of course you can't get a direct correlation, but it allows us to understand any complexities and problems that may arrive and see how it could possibly effect more smarter AI.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51866331]This is awesome. How long until wikipedia becomes self aware and vaporizes our cities?[/QUOTE] Wikipedia editing the planet...

[QUOTE=Blanketspace;51867097]Wikipedia editing the planet...[/QUOTE] Editing what certain politicians wish they could

I once tried to edit an article about Gdańsk, saying that it's also often called Danzig when speaking in English. I know this because I've lived here for 10 years, but apparently "the bbc doesn't use danzig" is a good argument to not include that in the article so alright sure whatever you say mate Basically my point is Wikipedia's edditors are often smartasses

[QUOTE=SirJon;51868267]I once tried to edit an article about Gdańsk, saying that it's also often called Danzig when speaking in English. I know this because I've lived here for 10 years, but apparently "the bbc doesn't use danzig" is a good argument to not include that in the article so alright sure whatever you say mate Basically my point is Wikipedia's edditors are often smartasses[/QUOTE] Honestly I can see where there's a conflict. Wikipedia requires reputable sources and living somewhere for 10 years is both hard to quantify and verify.