Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 Years of Wikipedia

wikipedia25.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 498 posts

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#61

Post by rvnx »

jamespo wrote: post #53
rvnx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is literally a spin-off of a porn company. From that point on, where it came from or who founded it is not so important. The question is how it acts today. It is a highly-political organization supporting lot of “progressive” ideas, California-style. So if you like reading politically biased media it may be for you. If you are seeking for a global view you better ask different LLMs for arguments and counter…

Yes LLMs that don't disclose sources are much better.

LLMs have their issues too.

In everyday life, you cannot read 20 books about a topic about everything you are curious about, but you can ask 5 subject-experts (“the LLMs”) in 20 seconds

some of them who are going to check on some news websites (most are also biased)

Then you can ask for summaries of pros and cons, and make your own opinions.

Are they hallucinating ? Could be. Are they lying ? Could be. Have they been trained on what their masters said to say ? Could be.

But multiplying the amount of LLMs reduce the risk.

For example, if you ask DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Claude, GLM-4.7 or some models that have no guardrails, what they think about XXX, then perhaps there are interesting insights.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#62

Post by shuntress »

adventured wrote: post #40
p-e-w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Projects like Wikipedia never have meaningful competition, because the social dynamics invariably converge to a single platform eating everything else.

Wikipedia is already dead, they just don't know it yet. They'll get Stackoverflowed. The LLMs have already guaranteed their zombie end. The HN crowd will be comically delusional about it right up to the point where Wikimedia struggles to keep the lights on and has to fire 90% of its staff. There is no scenario where that outcome is avoided (some prominent billionaire will step in with a check as they get really despe…

LLMs will use Wikipedia the same way humans use it

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#63

Post by thiht »

observationist wrote: post #46

[flagged]

> It's remarkable that Grokipedia has challenged Wikipedia so thoroughly, at only 80 days old with 25 years of Wikipedia.

No?? In what world do you live?

Using Grokipedia would literally be asking for partisan propaganda, Musk doesn't even hide it

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#64

Post by encom »

gibspaulding wrote: post #39
FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

Friendly reminder that we all have the power to improve this! Become an editor and If you come across a problematic article, you can make improvements, or even just flag it as needing work. I know this is not a small ask, and can feel discouraging if you see more issues than you have time to address or your edits are not accepted, but when you consider the relatively small number of editors and the huge number of rea…

I'm not going into an edit war with some deranged redditor activist.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#66

Post by dgrin91 »

observationist wrote: post #46

[flagged]

Has it? I think to challenge you have to show some comparable usage numbers. Its certainly an impressive technical feat to have this AI-based wiki project, but does anyone actually use it?

I mean that genuinely. I don't know any usage numbers for Grok. Is it even 1% of Wiki? Is it 50%? Is it more?

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#67

Post by CamperBob2 »

jamespo wrote: post #53
rvnx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is literally a spin-off of a porn company. From that point on, where it came from or who founded it is not so important. The question is how it acts today. It is a highly-political organization supporting lot of “progressive” ideas, California-style. So if you like reading politically biased media it may be for you. If you are seeking for a global view you better ask different LLMs for arguments and counter…

Yes LLMs that don't disclose sources are much better.

LLMs disclose sources now.

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#69

Post by shuntress »

amiga386 wrote: post #19

https://wikipedia25.org/en/the-first-day > Founder Jimbo Wales on a challenge overcome Aren't you forgetting someone, Jimmy? Your co-founder Larry Sanger, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Let's check one of the citations from the History of Wikipedia page: https://www.mid-day.com/lifestyle/health-and-fitness/article... > It was Larry Sanger who chanced upon the critical concept of combining the thr…

[flagged]

Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia

#70

Post by zahlman »

FiveOhThree wrote: post #24

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped awa…

> I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events.

I would say this started over a decade ago. Otherwise I completely agree.

Post reply on HN