131–140 of 169 posts
[flagged]
[flagged]
It says that science has concluded that race is a social construct, but to my knowledge african people have no neanderthal DNA, and some people in africa have "ghost DNA" of an unknown hominid, if I remember an old new scientist article correctly. How is this purely social?
If you take various different African populations, you'll find they're genetically diverse, not one single group, and the differences within the racial categories are large compared to the differences between the racial categories.
To put it another way: dividing people up by skin colour being "black" or "white" is about as useful as doing so by their hair colour being "blonde" or "ginger" — it's not that this isn't part of the world, it is, it's just that the categorisation is functionally useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says that science has concluded that race is a social construct, but to my knowledge african people have no neanderthal DNA, and some people in africa have "ghost DNA" of an unknown hominid, if I remember an old new scientist article correctly. How is this purely social?
To oversimplify somewhat, the reason geneticists describe "race" as a social construct is that classifying everyone into a handful of buckets created by Victorians and based on people's dermal melanin density, fails to cut reality at its joints. For a more detailed response: https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ If you take various different African populations, you'll find they're genetically dive…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not an encyclopedia that is supposed to be objective.
When you grow up to be an adult, you will understand that "objectivity"is a fiction. And an encyclopedia can absolutely do that and still present factual information based on actual research and facts. You know that just because a lady has blue hair or a person has colored skin does NOT mean that they can't be right about something or do good research. Right? You do know it, right? Because in the end, when you cry ab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes. Why? This site isn't run by people who are interested in factual accuracy. If they think Wikipedia articles are inaccurate, they could always propose changes and have a proper discussion with the rest of the contributors. Grok was trained on Wikipedia so realistically this is just a jumbled regurgitation of Wikipedia articles blended with ot…
the pursuit of truth doesn’t work by keeping so-called falsehoods up while a debate rages on about their veracity. especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts. i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening. the proper discussion you want will never happen. it’s an exercise in persuasion ie trying to move people…
Are you familiar with Wikipedia at all? Here, for anyone who is unfamiliar, let's take a look at an example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid - this is guaranteed to have controversial ongoing discussions given the political climate.
Note how at the top of the page right now there are two large boxes discussing ongoing changes to the article - one indicating that it is considered too long, and another indicating that some of the content is being split into a separate draft [0] page. Both of these boxes include links to the relevant pages and policies.
The first box, indicating that the article is too long and drifting off topic, includes a direct link to the Talk page [1]. Note that this page is also linked at the top of the article, and that goes for every single article on wikipedia.
That talk page is where the proper discussion that I want happens - out in the open. Note that you can even reply to talking points without needing an account. Note that replies and criticisms are reproduced and readable directly on the page.
This is what open collaboration and truth seeking looks like. "Grokipedia" requires you to create an account and funnel a suggested correction into an black box. It's the equivalent of a suggestions box in an HR office. On wikipedia, the discussion is out in the open, while the grok version just says "Fact checked by Grok" at the top, like we're supposed to blindly trust that.
Which of these is modeling open collaboration, and which of these is just deferring to priest grok, again? The grok page gives no indication that alternative interpretations exist, they don't show any indication that sections are being criticized as inaccurate. Comparing Wikipedia to the catholic church like this is divorced from reality, doubly so in comparison to this grok project.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:History_of_South_Africa_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid
If you’ve tried OpenAI’s Deep Research or similar tools, you’ll know they pull far more info than Wikipedia. But if you’re an expert, you’ll quickly spot errors since the breadth is huge but the depth and accuracy are only so-so. For non-experts just exploring new topics, it’s still perfectly useful. Grokipedia probably uses a similar search, verify, summarize workflow, so it naturally inherits mistakes from the inte…
Why build a synthetic data Wikipedia when Wikipedia exists? Except to push some political point like Grokipedia seems to be for.