Since people aren't going to stackoverflow to ask & answer questions, the answers won't be as easily found, causing the AI to slowly become dumber and dumber. The "answers" it gives will make less sense and be increasingly outright wrong. At least, given the current level of chatgpt/AI technology. It won't get better until it actually understands -- and right now it's on borrowed time stealing the understanding from others. When we stop feeding the AI with answers, it will only be as dumb as we are increasingly becoming.

I was thinking more of allowing two versions to be displayed as the article, rather than have ongoing editing wars. Two people who continue to refute the other's edits would then both be visible. Yes, I understand that all edits are tracked in the history, but possibly there could be this way of allowing differences to be aired -- which if nothing else could be educational for the general public as to the controversy that exists on a given subject. My theory is that instead of hiding the edits in the history, show them in some intelligible fashion on the actual page, in an attempt to diffuse the argument by airing it publicly.

For contentious articles, possibly wikipedia could just display both versions (in a format similar to diff) and thus inform readership of differing views on the subject. That would prevent voices from being silenced by bullying. Some sort of reconciliation procedure could occur, possibly with voting on the wording of a combined version, over a significant enough time period to allow heads to cool.

Try www.aretta.com, although they may have a different rate.