> Much of wikipedia is written by one person, Steven Pruitt. He has created more than 33,000 Wikipedia articles.

There are over 7m articles in English Wikipedia.

Maybe when Steven Pruitt starts hallucinating facts we can make the "both sides" argument. But until then....

Note that Pruitt has the highest number of edits on Wikipedia, but not the highest number of created articles.

The problem with AI on Wikipedia is that the reason I've noticed it is because I've just seen blatantly incorrect stuff, mentioned breezily in passing, with no references. It's shitting up a thing that was already pretty easy to shit up if you had a motive, and your changes often wouldn't be noticed for months or years if an article wasn't well-trafficked.

AI doesn't even have a motive, it's just dumb - so you can't even track the mistakes to specific motivated users or networks of users. There's no way to clean it up.

Although I have to agree with you (probably, because I'm going to put words in your mouth) that this is a basic problem with wikipedia and how it is structured and governed, rather than a problem with AI. Anybody could always just put nonsense anywhere at any time; AI is just a chaos monkey. Wikipedia can't rely on groupthink to maintain itself, it has not worked and will not work, chaos monkeys are needed.