391–400 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you could produce a single example. Keep in mind that stating a fact and dogwhistling are not the same thing.
Exactly, you don't think it's true because you don't believe they're facts, you've been radicalized into believing they're "dogwhistles" (a term only used by radicalized people, by the way - if you keep hearing dogwhistles, you might just be a dog.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh. Wow. I had no idea Jimmy Wales was like that. Enlightening.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. One can beleive in the enlightenment ideals without placing north america, europe, and the relations between them as the most important thing. For example - one could argue (quite successfully) that the US and Europe propping up dictators in south america and middle east to secure easy access to oil against the wishes and election results of those nations is opposed to many enlightenment ideals, but it is still a…
Slave trade was not a product of the enlightenment. That idea is 1000s of years old.
Slightly off topic, but now that long context machine translation is roughly on-par with humans: are there any official efforts from Wikipedia, to translate the "best" or "most complete" language version of each article to all other languages? I'd imagine that the effort of getting all languages up to the same standards are just an impossible one and people from "lower-resource" languages would benefit a lot.
Not quite, the official in-development project wrt. this area is Abstract Wikipedia https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia which plans to develop a human-editable structural interlanguage for encyclopedic content that can then be automatically "rendered" to existing natural languages, as opposed to just starting from an existing "best or most complete" natural-language text. This avoids the unreliability…
This won't work, and it would fail the same way as Semantic Web. Too much human labor needed.
I do believe that Wikipedia is one of the least biased sources out there, but there is definitely bias. Here is a concrete example. Compare the introduction paragraph of the English circumcision article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision ) with the German one ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkumzision ). The English intro talks a lot about medical advantages of the procedure: "reduced rates of sexually tr…
A major reason people are obsessed with bias on wikipedia is because it is the only usable encyclopedia now. Back then even just in the US and published in english there were more than a dozen different encyclopedias competing with different scopes, intended audiences, viewpoints, arrangements, features, editorial policies, etc. And the publishers were more diverse and not monopolistic. There simply wasn't a need for any single one of them to be bias-free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GamerGate wasn’t doing that work and they distracted mightily from it. For example, the much-hated Kotaku was actually doing reporting which got them black listed so not only was GamerGate not contributing there, they were actually harming the people who were: https://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293 Even if they had also been involved, it would not excuse the abusive behavior.
That Kotaku piece was a full year after GamerGate, if anything people might question whether it'd have happened if GamerGate hasn't drawn attention to these problems.
I was close to finishing school when Wikipedia came up. A lot of complaints and concerns about LLMs today echo remarks about Wikipedia back then. Kids won’t learn anything, they will just copy and paste! The information is unreliable, our kids will stop thinking critically or learning how to research! While I don’t mean to equate both, I find the resemblance in this case striking.
Also, the young wikipedia was very different from what it is today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, he did not Those were his words, I’m not sure why you’d expect your assertion to be more credible. > nobody was claiming that Grayson reviewed Quinn's games beyond like a day or two of confusion They spent a year lying about her “unethical” actions justifying all of the abuse, and it all traced back to that foundational lie.
> Those were his words No, they aren't. They're your interpretation of Boston Magazine's spin (and it's really, really obvious purely from the style of the prose that it's a complete hit piece that chose its conclusion ahead of time). The article provides no evidence of any such words. Because there is no such evidence, because he said nothing of the sort. > They spent a year lying about her “unethical” actions justi…
They’re literally the words he updated his blogpost to add.
> That is, again, objectively not what happened.
Cool story, do you have any sources? You keep saying every period source is wrong, based on what?
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…
It's his newer baby. Clearly it's a clone of Wikipedia, without the content of course. If Wikipedia ever goes wrong, it's nice to know that we have an alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this relate to a particular domain or field? I find it so good, and on the rare occasion I’ve found something wrong, I’ve fixed it.
I find math topics to be insufferable. They are written to be as theoretical as possible and borderline useless if you do not already know the topic at hand.