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

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 243 posts

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#201

Post by yappen »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #199
yappen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> At least most Christians and Muslims accept that others don't believe in their religion and, for the most part, don't force them to act as if they do. I've actually found Christians in America quite to be forcing their beliefs quite loudly upon everyone. Pretty wild to be personally offended by the tiny fraction of a percent that is the trans population (of which an even tinier amount is vocal as you say they are).

But you acknowledge that it is overbearing and undesirable for them to force their beliefs, and if someone called you "bigot" for complaining about this you would probably object, right?

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#202

Post by yappen »

LexiMax wrote: post #200
yappen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's not why you are obsessed with trans people. You are terrified that the next woman you ogle covetously or catcall won't have the parts you expect. You don't care about protecting women. The only thing you care about is protecting your fragile sense of masculinity.

That is a super odd comment and I have no idea why you believe this. Projecting, perhaps?

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#203

Post by thrance »

physarum_salad wrote: post #191
thrance wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do list these "alternative perspectives" that Wikipedia is allegedly unfairly silencing.

The fact you think there are none is really hilarious!

The fact you're still eluding isn't very funny though. Please share just one, that we may discuss it.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#204

Post by wtfwhateven »

ares623 wrote: post #107
mlmonkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you insisted. This is from a couple of years ago, and I have moved on to never donating to Wikipedia again, so take it FWIW. I pointed out that India had reduced extreme poverty from ~16% in 2013 to ~2% in 2022. This is directly from a World Bank report: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997221042225345... One would think this would be reliable? One would be wrong since this is deemed to be "pro Modi…

OP delivered. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I don't know what kind of sources are allowed, but just on a gut-feel, that worldbank.org source seems okay?

He didn't deliver. He should just link to the actual revisions that were reverted. The fact he refuses to is telling.

He was definitely not banned as a result of his story, he definitely did something egregious (such as repeatedly insulting people on talk pages or repeated vandalism) or was editing without an account and he is portraying a typical residential IP block ban as him being banned for "wrong think". It is purely dishonest.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#205

Post by wtfwhateven »

mlmonkey wrote: post #94
ares623 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP has a chance to be vindicated. Surely they will take it?

Since you insisted. This is from a couple of years ago, and I have moved on to never donating to Wikipedia again, so take it FWIW. I pointed out that India had reduced extreme poverty from ~16% in 2013 to ~2% in 2022. This is directly from a World Bank report: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997221042225345... One would think this would be reliable? One would be wrong since this is deemed to be "pro Modi…

>Surely you can't deny that Wikipedia is biased against the so-called "right" side of the political spectrum, and biased towards the "left"?

You don't even name the article you were apparently having problems with. Not sure why anyone should just take the word of someone who is actively hiding the full story when it should be trivial to just link to.

It is obvious your story is either missing huge portions or you're just lying.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#206

Post by LexiMax »

yappen wrote: post #202
LexiMax wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not why you are obsessed with trans people. You are terrified that the next woman you ogle covetously or catcall won't have the parts you expect. You don't care about protecting women. The only thing you care about is protecting your fragile sense of masculinity.

That is a super odd comment and I have no idea why you believe this. Projecting, perhaps?

> I have no idea why you believe this.

Because I have thought about why people choose to hyper-focus on trans-folk, and it's one of the few explanations that makes sense, at least for men.

Why would someone say that they're "protecting" women, but advocate against abortion rights, divorce, sufferage, or higher limits on the age of consent to marry?

Why would someone say their religious views are incompatible, but have switched sects twice in the past decade because they disagreed with the direction their previous church was going in?

Why would someone claim to be protecting children from indoctrination yet vote for indoctrination of their own political views?

The contradictory explanations never made sense to me. The self-interested ones do.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#207

Post by yappen »

LexiMax wrote: post #206
yappen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a super odd comment and I have no idea why you believe this. Projecting, perhaps?

> I have no idea why you believe this. Because I have thought about why people choose to hyper-focus on trans-folk, and it's one of the few explanations that makes sense, at least for men. Why would someone say that they're "protecting" women, but advocate against abortion rights, divorce, sufferage, or higher limits on the age of consent to marry? Why would someone say their religious views are incompatible, but hav…

[dead]

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#208

Post by generationP »

spankibalt wrote: post #165
generationP wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I've said "anti-woke content", not "anti-woke media". I am including the occasional "course correction" opeds and actually well-researched longreads you're seeing in places like NYT, Atlantic and such. Partisan outlets for partisan readers aren't doing the heavy lifting here, but the success of Substack and the unexpected survival of Twitter under Elon have convinced editors to listen. Elon's personality is…

> "Note that I've said 'anti-woke content', not 'anti-woke media'." In the context of my argument a distinction without difference. > "I am including the occasional "course correction" opeds and actually well-researched longreads you're seeing in places like NYT, Atlantic and such." Well, that's the crux: There is no such thing for me as "actually well-researched anti-woke content". That's just a pathetic, and ultima…

Look for anything written by Jesse Singal or Charles Murray for the well-researched anti-woke content I'm referring to (and there is a lot of more; these are just two authors who made it their focus; some of the best stuff comes actually comes from journalists with wider purviews).

I don't know what "Cult of Personality" you are referring to; unless you are hallucinating this particular reference, I've gone to school in the wrong country for that particular report to be part of my assigned reading (and the right country, sadly, seems to have skipped it entirely; there might be an update out in a few years...). Either way, what is the relevance here? What I've been saying is that I'm far from sure of this project's success and would be doing it quite differently. Musk's personal characteristics may well be the reason why he did it the way he did, but ultimately the project won't live and die by them (already because he himself will likely lose interest soon enough).

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#209

Post by smitty1e »

thrance wrote: post #187
smitty1e wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Wikipedia process is created to manage bias. LLMs are created to repeat the input data, and will therefore be quite biased towards the training data. The perception of bias in Wikipedia remains, and if LLMs can detect and correct for bias, then Grokipedia seems at least a theoretical win. I'm happy with at least a set of links for further research on a topic of interest.

I fail to imagine how putting Wikipedia in the hands of an ideologically captured mega-billionaire will help the fight against bias. The owner of Grokipedia has shown times and times again that he has no regards for truth, and likes to advertise the many false things he believes in. The technology behind it doesn't matter. Show me the incentives and I'll tell you the results: Wikipedia is decentralized, Grokipedia ha…

To use your terminology, the perception that Wikipedia is "ideologically captured" stands.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#210

Post by thrance »

smitty1e wrote: post #209
thrance wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to imagine how putting Wikipedia in the hands of an ideologically captured mega-billionaire will help the fight against bias. The owner of Grokipedia has shown times and times again that he has no regards for truth, and likes to advertise the many false things he believes in. The technology behind it doesn't matter. Show me the incentives and I'll tell you the results: Wikipedia is decentralized, Grokipedia ha…

To use your terminology, the perception that Wikipedia is "ideologically captured" stands.

How so? Because the community collectively refuses to host antivax or climate denialism propaganda? You can find these subjects on there btw, just with a mention correctly labelling them as falsehoods.

I'm yet to see conservatives bring up a single subject that Wikipedia allegedly silences out of ideology, that is not an obviously false conspiracy theory. In this, Wikipedia may appear to have a left-wing bias, but only because the modern right has gotten so divorced from reality that not relaying their propaganda feels like bias against them.

Post reply on HN