Identical text perceived as less credible when presented as a Wikipedia article than as simulated ChatGPT or Alexa output. The researchers note that these results might be influenced by the fact that it is easier to discern factual errors on a static text page like a Wikipedia than when listening to the spoken audio of Alexa or watching the streaming chat-like presentation of ChatGPT.

However, exploratory analyses yielded an interesting discrepancy between perceived information credibility when being exposed to actual information and global trustworthiness ratings regarding the three information search applications. Here, online encyclopedias were rated as most trustworthy, while no significant differences were observed between voice-based and dynamic text-based agents.

Contrary to our predictions, people felt higher enjoyment [measured using questions like “I found reading the information / listening to the information entertaining”] when information was presented as static or dynamic text compared to the voice-based agent, while the two text-based conditions did not significantly differ. In Experiment 2, we expected to replicate this pattern of results but found that people also felt higher enjoyment with the dynamic text-based agent than the static text.

Edit: Added “for credibility” to title

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    https://www.wikiwand.com/ is what your looking for, its basically a wrapper with a modern UI

    If you visit the site straight from the web there may be ads but if you use the extension there shouldn’t be

    They are also a leading donor to wikipedia so its not like they’re just stealing content for profit. You may indirectly do more to get money in wikipedia their hands then you do by visiting the main site.

    • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      from Wikiwand’s description:

      Welcome to Wikiwand, an AI-driven wiki aggregator created to enhance user experience on Wikipedia by streamlining knowledge consumption.

      We integrate AI alongside, not as a replacement for, the full-contextual articles from Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary.

      By leveraging cutting-edge AI technologies, Wikiwand helps users quickly grasp key points and related topics without the need to sift through lengthy articles.

      oh how the mighty have fallen.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t use Wikiwand because I don’t like the interface, but IMO that’s just how they attract funding.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I mean yeah they do have an ai chat feature but i literally never used it and honestly forgot its there.

        Honestly the quote from their site confuses me, i ve used since before ai buzz started and i have not noticed much difference so i am not sure what they mean with being ai drive, maybe just marketing?

        Not a good look admittedly but i’d say it’s the actual product that counts, which really is just modern wikipedia ui.

    • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s modern alright, complete with an “AI tools sidebar” and a “please login” popup that takes up half the screen.