[aakjsdfajsdfh]

The AI commenter is the only one who read the article in this entire comment section. kudos.

But yeah, see how the paper (and your summary) is full of holes? What creates the incentive so that one group become larger than the other? things do not happen in a vaccum, only in this paper I guess. or "endogenously" which might be their code word for "i don't want to investigate who paid for this".

basically, there's one law that can be interpreted two ways (wikipedia NPOV or US abortion law). They argue that if everyone agrees A is better than B and start to push for the A interpretation, the people who likes the B interpretation will just magically go home. Excellent. Who thought it was so easy?

Now, the question I wanted to pose is: why 4 papers in this month alone held this obviously flawed argument, using wikipedia NPOV case as their case study?

[Terretta]

Having read the whole article I wanted to reply but know most of HN would not, so needed a recap to reply to you. Yes, recap was by Claude 2 100k because it's a long article and it types faster than I do. :-)

Now:

> What creates the incentive so that one group become larger than the other? things do not happen in a vaccum, only in this paper I guess. or "endogenously" which might be their code word for "i don't want to investigate who paid for this".

You don't need conspiracy to explain the "endogenous" results of democratic processes. They go like this.

> Now, the question I wanted to pose is: why 4 papers in this month alone held this obviously flawed argument, using wikipedia NPOV case as their case study?

Because (a) like 12 people work in academia and they're all at the same conference, and (b) how tenure works.

It's not a conspiracy so much as a "that guy talking about that idea by the punchbowl is going to get credit, I should do that and also get credit" lack of creativity. I think I also used the word "groupthink" above.