--- title: "Wikipedia No Longer Considers CNET a “Generally Reliable” Source After AI Scandal" description: "Conversations between Wikipedia editors following CNET's AI scandal reflect the reputational hazards of AI content and dubious ownership." date: "2024-02-29" modified: "2024-02-29" authors: - name: "Maggie Harrison Dupré" job_title: "Senior Staff Writer" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/mharrison" url: "https://futurism.com/wikipedia-cnet-unreliable-ai" categories: - "Artificial Intelligence" tags: - "ai" - "cnet" - "journalism" - "red ventures" --- # Wikipedia No Longer Considers CNET a “Generally Reliable” Source After AI Scandal ![]() *\Image: Joe Klamar / AFP via Getty / Futurism\* Remember last year, when we reported that the Red Ventures-owned *CNET* had been [quietly publishing]() dozens of AI-generated articles that turned out to be [filled with errors]() and [plagiarism]()? The revelation kicked off a [fiery debate]() about the future of the media in the era of AI — as well as an equally passionate discussion among editors of Wikipedia, who needed to figure out how to treat *CNET* content going forward. "*C**NET*, usually regarded as an ordinary tech \[reliable source\], has started experimentally running AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors," a Wikipedia editor named David Gerard wrote to kick off a [January 2023 discussion thread]() in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources forum, where editors convene to decide whether a given source is trustworthy enough for editors to cite. "So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't," Gerard continued, warning that "any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed." Gerard's admonition was posted on January 18, 2023, just a few days after our initial story about *CNET*'s use of AI. The comment launched a discussion that would ultimately result in *CNET's* demotion from its once-strong Wikipedia rating of "generally reliable." It was a grim fall that one former Red Ventures employee told us could "put a huge dent in their SEO efforts," and also a cautionary tale about the wide-ranging reputational effects that publishers should consider before moving into AI-generated content. "Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here," a Wikipedia editor who goes by the name "bloodofox" chimed in. "*CNET* generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some 'corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it," they added, alluding to the time that *CNET's* then-Editor-in-Chief Connie Guglielmo — who now serves as Red Ventures' "Senior Vice President of AI Edit Strategy" — disparagingly [referred to journalists]() who covered *CNET's* AI debacle as "some writers... I won't call them reporters." But *C**NET* wasn't the only outlet caught in the scandal, leading to another driving point of concern for the Wikipedia editors. *Futurism* discovered similar content over at Red Ventures' other sites [*Bankrate*]() and *[CreditCards.com]()*, and one former employee [alleged that]() disclosure-free AI content was being published to Red Ventures' vast portfolio of higher education-focused websites. This wasn't the first time that a Red Ventures site had faced reliability concerns on Wikipedia. The Red Ventures-owned sites [*Healthline*]() and [*The Points Guy*]() both currently sit on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, the former due to publishing misinformation and the latter for questionable relationships with the credit card companies it covers. That didn't go unnoticed by the Wikipedia volunteers. "According to the reporting we've seen so far," bloodofox's passionate diatribe continued, Red Ventures "evidently implemented these tools and approaches throughout their portfolio but won't say exactly where or how. And why should we believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been remotely transparent about any of this — the company could at best be described as deceitful — and the company runs a big stable of SEO-focused content mills across its ecosystem just like what we're seeing on post-acquisition *CNET*." "It's worth looking into how we're using properties that they own as sources," the editor added. The revelations kept coming. In early February, the [*Verge* alleged that]() Red Ventures personnel had violated *CNET's* editorial ethics by pushing the publication's staff to be more favorable to its advertisers — another blow to the embattled publication's already-fractured public image. By then, *CNET* and *Bankrate* had both "[paused]()" their AI efforts and issued [extensive corrections](). But the damage was already done, at least in the Wikipedia editors' eyes. By mid-February, the editors had concluded that anything published by CNET after its 2020 sale to Red Ventures could no longer be considered "generally reliable," and thus should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Further, they concluded, anything published to *CNET* between November 2022 and January 2023 should be considered "generally unreliable." Surely *CNET's* human journalists were doing high-quality work during that window. But in the Wikipedia editors' view, the egregiousness of the AI effort negated the publication's credibility as a whole. "In November 2022, *CNET* began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings," reads the notice. "More than 70 finance-related articles written by the AI tool were published under the byline '*CNET* Money Staff', and Red Ventures issued corrections to over half of them amidst mounting pressure. *CNET* has since announced it would pause the use of its AI tool 'for now', but concerns over its advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved." Wikipedia's [source guidelines]() now provide this striking table that sums up the site's view on *CNET*: that it was reliable until it was acquired by Red Ventures, unreliable for the period it was caught using AI, and that since 2020 it's suffered a "deterioration in editorial standards." ![]() It wouldn't be the last time that Wikipedia editors would address *CNET* or Red Ventures' reliability. This year, following a [discussion]() about the state of the Red Ventures-owned consumer tech site *ZDNET*, an editor known as "Chess" opened a new thread to address the reliability of Red Ventures' overall portfolio. Citing the AI saga at *CNET* and *Bankrate*, the alleged editorial ethics breaches, and more, Chess argued that Wikipedia should consider knocking *every* Red Ventures-owned website down a trustworthiness peg. "We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another," Chess argued in their opener, published on January 24, reasoning that the quality of content seems secondary to Red Ventures' SEO-focused business model. "I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source." Some editors quickly took Chess' side. As one cosigner, an editor who goes by "The Kip," wrote a few hours later: "Between the AI-generated and often blatantly inaccurate content, as well as the SEO/sales/marketing-oriented output, and the decisions previously made regarding *CNET* and *The Points Guy*, a fairly easy blanket \[change to generally unrelaiable\]." "It's high time for it. Enough is enough," a familiar voice, bloodofox, concurred, adding that "if it's owned by Red Ventures, we need to go ahead and identify it as a hard \[Reliable Sources\] fail." Others, however, weren't convinced. "Frankly, categorizing an entire outlet as unreliable because one writer or one editor craps the bed is an overreaction," replied an editor dubbed "JPxG," because "doing so because someone at a different outlet owned by the same parent company crapped the bed is medieval." JPxG later argued that such a system would impart a "guilty until proven innocent" standard of preemptive punishment. It's true that ownership changes, however frustrating or unfortunate, are a reality of the media world, and staff typically have no input in them. Red Ventures purchased *CNET* for [$500 million]() in 2020 [following a merger]() between *CBS* — which purchased *CNET* for [$1.8 billion]() in 2010 — and Viacom. That a given publication's reputation for producing reliable information could be compromised *solely* by a sale to a new owner would be a sweeping condemnation. Still, Red Ventures is far from a passive overlord. Its executives have touted the power of AI with a near-fanatical zeal. "From here on out," CEO Ric Elias told company employees in a July 2023 all-hands meeting that [*Futurism* obtained audio of](), "we are going to become AI." At least at *CNET*, that commitment is now sounding pretty wilted. "*CNET* is the world's largest provider of unbiased tech-focused news and advice," a *CNET* spokesperson said in an emailed statement about its demotion on Wikipedia. "We have been trusted for nearly 30 years because of our rigorous editorial and product review [standards](). It is important to clarify that *CNET* is not actively using AI to create new content. While we have no specific plans to restart, any future initiatives would follow our public [AI policy]()." "Additionally, previous reporting regarding pressure to write favorably about advertisers is false and unfairly affects our staff's work and reputations," the spokesperson added. "We stand by the work that we do, the quality of our content and the editorial integrity of our staff. *CNET* functions as an independent entity within Red Ventures, led by an independent leadership team." In the wake of *CNET*'s AI drama, [its staff unionized](), citing AI and the threat it poses to their "jobs and reputations." And to that end, it's worth reiterating that the Wikipedia editors chose not to demote *CNET's* pre-Red Ventures journalism; in a testament to *CNET's* legacy as a trustworthy publication, its archives remain "generally reliable" by Wikipedia editors' standards. But that tension illustrates the depths of *CNET's* more recent wounds. Red Ventures, based on [several]() [insider accounts](), seems to [overwhelmingly value]() quantity over quality. Ultimately, its attempts to squeeze SEO juice out of *CNET* snowballed into a disaster that compromised the foundations of a brand that took decades of quality journalism to build. "It's infuriating that Red Ventures' decisions have undermined the quality work done by *CNET's* writers, editors and producers," the *CNET* Media Workers Union told us in a statement, noting that they were unaware of the changes to the outlet's reliability rating on Wikipedia. "That's why we're fighting for a union contract with specific language to protect our bylines, codify editorial standards and implement specific guardrails around AI." Of course, Wikipedia editors aren't the ultimate authority for what qualifies good journalism. But their demotion of *CNET* is a cautionary tale for other media owners looking to roll out AI in newsrooms. Hopefully, *CNET* can claw its way back into the Wikipedia editors' good graces. Whether that's possible [under Red Ventures' umbrella](), though, remains to be seen. Adding a further wrinkle, Red Ventures is now reportedly exploring a sale of *CNET*, but [having trouble]() due to concerns around the AI debacle. "Our staff is dedicated to repairing the damage caused by management," the *CNET* union's statement continued, "and to restoring *CNET's* reputation as a trustworthy and reliable site." **More on *CNET*:** *[CNET's Publisher Having Trouble Selling It Due to AI Scandal]()* ## Author At Futurism, I've reported extensively on the rise of AI as a cultural and business force shaping the media industry, and more broadly how those dynamics are changing how we all consume and share information and relate to one another. I'm also fascinated by public health policy and ethics, the role of emerging tech in politics and governance — and the powerful people and forces at those intersections — climate change, and the environment. My investigation on Sports Illustrated's use of AI-generated authors with fictional biographies won a 2024 Mirror Award for "Best Story on Media Coverage of Artificial Intelligence in Journalism and the Media" from Syracuse University's SI Newhouse School, I contributed to Niemen Lab's 2025 Predictions for Journalism series, and I've discussed my work for Futurism during appearances on NPR, CNN, the BBC, the CBC, and more. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and attended the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where I played Division I field hockey for the Minutewomen as a midfielder. Since then, I've lived in New Orleans, Louisiana and Manhattan, New York. I spend my free time running, reading, perusing archival fashion, and searching for the world’s best negroni. I also have a debonair tuxedo cat, Westley, who's named after "The Princess Bride." ### Author social links [Bluesky]()