[flagged]
You misspelled "vital for manufacturing consent".
25 Years of Wikipedia
151–160 of 498 posts
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#152Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very touchy subject for Wales. It caused him to walk out of an interview after 48 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswRbWyt_pg
Without context, it looks like the interviewer was a jerk and ambushed him. I've seen plenty of stalling like that on major news programs, and the interviewer always knows to move on (and possibly edit something in to provide context.) --- That being said, "who started what" and "who had what idea" are silly topics to obsesses about. It always come down to who put the long-term work in. I think Wales was "in the righ…
>It always come down to who put the long-term work in.
Exactly. Kudo to the wikimedia community!
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#154The Wikipedia "reliability" list shows wild, almost laughable biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... Surely people don't think sources such as Mother Jones are more 'reliable' than The New York Post, Fox News, or The Heritage Foundation? Not a coincidence there. Having such obvious biases does nothing but damage the Wikipedia brand, and at this point has me anticipating Ai replacement…
> Surely people don't think sources such as Mother Jones are more 'reliable' than The New York Post, Fox News, or The Heritage Foundation?
That seems based on a premise that I don't grasp. Why is Mother Jones more or less reliable than those sources? Are those sources reliable in your opinion?
My impression is that you have a strong opinion and are assuming everyone shares it.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#155[flagged]
On the contrary, this thread seems to have a large number of users who can't handle criticism of Wikipedia without responding with unfounded assumptions and insinuations about the critic
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Wikipedia is not even in the game you are describing here. Wikipedia does not need billions of users clicking on ads to convince investors in yet another seed. They are an encyclopedia, and if fewer people will visit, they will still be an encyclopedia. Their costs are probably very strongly correlated with their number of visitors.
[deleted]
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#157[flagged]
There is nothing impressive about an AI slop Wikipedia rewrite by a radicalized eccentric billionaire.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#158[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?
It's consistently better in content quality, for everything that I've used it for. I've seen conversations complaining about it that effectively reek of either anti-Musk or anti-AI bias, and when I dig in, I haven't found any legitimate bad information or arbitrary bias in the articles themselves.
It's not yet as comprehensive, with ~6 million articles compared to Wikipedia's ~7 million, and the UI isn't as good, with a lot of polish and convenience and fun features in Wikipedia that are noticeably absent.
It's qualitatively better in significant ways, and when you compare and contrast articles for which there's a difference, you start to get a feel for the ways in which Wikipedia has failed.
Being anti-Musk is a shibboleth and article of faith for a lot of people, so they can't engage with anything he's involved in on an objective level. Grokipedia isn't used by as many people for that and other reasons. From the last couple months of using it, I've found it to be an objectively better tool.
I've gone in and made corrections in places I have knowledge of, and the process and transparency of those types of edits are awesome. It just works, no drama, no dealing with digital tinpot tyrants, and if there's evidence you're wrong about a thing, the bot will actually counter your suggestion and stick to its parameters and standards.
It's not perfect by any means, but it's a damn sight better than Wikipedia.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#159It's really remarkable how, every single time Wikipedia comes up on HN, there's a bunch of comments about bias and such... and yet never a single example is ever linked.
There are examples listed on this page and in many discussions.
Re: 25 Years of Wikipedia
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
The LLMs I use all supply references.
Indeed! Sometimes even more than actually exist! I don't think LLMs can be faulted on their enthusiasm for supplying references.
Yup, there's a wonderful, presumably LLM generated, response to somebody explaining how trademark law actually works, the LLM response insists that explanation was all wrong and cites several US law cases. Most of the cases don't exist, the rest aren't about trademark law or anywhere close. But the LLM isn't supposed to say truths, it's a stochastic parrot, it makes what looks most plausible as a response. "Five" is a pretty plausible response to "What is two plus three?" but that's not because it added 2 + 3 = 5