> On the other hand, Wikipedia's image changed largely due to the transparency behind its editorial processes- both the edit history and the discussions regarding editorial decisions are available in public.
That was still true early on when people were making fun of the idea. Like with many things, the public perception changed when it got popular and the people who had been laughing at it realized they also had a use for it.
I also can't agree that the production of Wikipedia articles isn't opaque. In fact, I would say that the perception of reliability of Wikipedia (as noted in many of these comments) makes it more likely to lead people astray .
Do Wikipedia articles often list sources? Sure. Do most people not bother checking the sources, and simply rely on a third-party to accurately summarize them? Also true. Do the few who actually check the sources often find it impossible, because the source is simply an academic book that most people don't have available? True as well. Even if it was available to them, the source is often (though not always) give as the entire book, so tracking down the source for a particular claim means you're searching for a needle in a haystack (and that's for just one claim).
I say this as someone who's actually interested in the source for the claims in Wikipedia articles, and have spent a lot of time trying to track them down. Often to no avail (and when I do manage to track them down, it's not uncommon to find the summary on Wikipedia misleading).
For instance, it takes me all of 30 seconds to write:
> Lincoln was actually in favor of subdividing Texas into four different states, and had the support of Congress to do so. It probably would have happened if he had lived. Source: Harris, William C. (2011). Lincoln and the Border States: Preserving the Union. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
The source exists, but I have never read the book. Almost no one that reads this comment has easy access to the book, and even if they did I doubt anyone would go through it to fact check me (and by the time anyone did, this conversation would have been long over).
Does ChatGPT sometimes give inaccurate answers? Certainly. But at the moment more of its users seem to be more aware of the potential issues with the platform than the users of Wikipedia, AskHistorians, The New York Times, etc. are.