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

Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

mcsweeneys.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#61

Post by marcellus23 »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #51
marcellus23 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is not some intellectual thinkpiece that only the literati can comprehend. Trends change, humor evolves. If "shoop da whoop", rage comics, leetspeak, and motivational posters aren't funny anymore, it's not because people "got stupid".

I'm not talking about the Literati. Anything above the sixth grade level is no longer suitable for the majority of the population.

I assure you, the reason McSweeney's is no longer funny is not because the humor is too smart. "peer review deez nutz" does not require reading above the sixth grade level.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#62

Post by geye1234 »

Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases:

https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye...

Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it.

I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#63

Post by JKCalhoun »

rconti wrote: post #8
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #3

Can someone give me a deeper understanding of what this post means or the backstory behind it?

There's a website called Wikipedia that is a free online encyclopedia; a compendium of knowledge that can be freely viewed OR edited by anyone with an internet connection. Founded in 2001, it has been looked down upon by academics who believe that compiling and providing knowledge for free leads to cheating. Over the past few years, ANOTHER new technology called Large Language Model, or LLM, has been invented. This n…

I never shat on Wikipedia. The closest thing to it was probably those sets of encyclopedias that seem to be so ubiquitous in middle class, split-level America. And I have little doubt that Wikipedia and its army of contributors outperformed those.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#64

Post by advisedwang »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #27

Maybe if Wikipedia sourced more peer reviewed publications and less Vox, I would be more satisfied. Thrilled to see Grokipedia as a competitor that could perhaps pressure Wikipedia to improve its editorial policies.

Did they omit Wikipedia when creating the models behind Grokipedia? Otherwise it less a competitor and more a re-hash.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#65

Post by vinnymac »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #43
8bitsrule wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an early WP editor, I can relate ... the project caught -a lot- of crap back in the early days. This is a smug but accurate, simple recounting of that sordid tale, and the value that WP retains now that AI is around to cite it. I don't edit much any more, but although it's not perfect, it's retinue of backup resources (including links to Wayback for those which died) remains invaluable.

I remember being told in school that we shouldn't use Wikipedia (not just for citations, but at all ) because anyone can edit it. We were told to use other websites directly, or better yet: paper books. I would get in trouble for "talking back" when I pointed out that anyone can make a website or write a book, too.

Ah, a teacher telling a student to get in line, or else. A tale as told as time.

Since we defunded education in my area, my wife left teaching behind. She says the LLMs will let students ask whatever questions they want, but they make poor educators.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#66

Post by radley »

marcellus23 wrote: post #2

I love Wikipedia, but Wikimedia does not need your donations at all, as much as its misleading ads try to convince you it's on the brink of death. As far as this particular article goes, it just comes off as kind of cringeworthy to me. This is a style of internet humor that went out of fashion about 10 years ago.

> This is a style of internet humor that went out of fashion about 10 years ago.

That's because reality trumped satire.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#68

Post by JKCalhoun »

geye1234 wrote: post #62

Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases: https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye... Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it. I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed…

> written by experts

…and let the bickering begin…

Nothing is going to be immune from people accusing it of bias, etc. Wikipedia is pretty damn good (and free).

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#69

Post by wortelefant »

With some controversial topics like Nuclear Power on the German wikipedia or the Gaza conflict on the English one, wikipedia has become less than useless. Once an activist editor sith too much time gets hold of a page, it is game over for neutrality of wokipedia. Grokipedia might introduce some much needed competition.

Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

#70

Post by gdulli »

antonymoose wrote: post #45
coolelectronics wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me less than a minute on the site to run into factually wrong information, broken citations, etc. Cannot imagine rotting my brain with knowingly bad information for over 2 hours

I’ve run into the exact same set of issues on Wikipedia.

Suggesting that people being able to make mistakes means that there's no qualitative and quantitative difference in how AI makes mistakes is either disingenuous or stupid. I don't know which place you're coming from or what kind of gotcha you think you pulled, but it doesn't create a strong argument either way.
Post reply on HN