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.
The sneering and nihilist tone is very off putting. But not nearly as much as the boomer brained conception of the world's information model pre 2004, which was not nearly as good as those who invoke Murrow and Cronkite believe it was.
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.
The few last times I went on Wikipedia, I was totally disgusted by their donation bar.
The message is feeling off regarding how much money they have and how much they waste at useless executives.
But also I was really pissed off by the fact that they put multiple bubbles for that that completely cover the main page when you are on mobile and a lot in desktop.
Having to scroll that much is kind of worse than cookie popup that I can close in one click.
So I realized that it is the reason why I don't go to the site anymore. It's more relaxing to get the answer directly from Google, Kagi, or a llm.
Sadly for Wikipedia, they are responsible for them own demise in my opinion. And it is a good think in the hope that they will realize something when the traffic will really go down. Despite my sadness on the topic regarding the initial goal of the encyclopedia that was laudable.
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.
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.
Wikipedia was the greatest long ago. Then anonymous partisans setup a 'source blacklist' which essentially curates all of wiki for a specific ideology. They acknowledge their systemic bias and have done nothing to fix it. Wiki deserves to give us an apology.
In reality no apology needed from wiki, we just move on to what's better. Grokipedia v0.1 is out and from what I've seen it's shockingly better. Tons of improvements are still to come no doubt. Ive found inaccuracies in articles that I look forward to having grok remedy.
Soon we will get APIs which will slot into searxng well. The plan is to have grok be the only editor. You have to convince grok to edit a page.
Grokipedia's AI editor point of view will thus eliminate the human/ideological abuse of wikipedia.
Yes. I thought of Wikipedia as a forum for annoying socially inept nerds, who'd have millions of pages for pokemons, but delete pages for thing that exist on Earth. Now I have to remember those days with nostalgia.
I'm not yet decided on StackOverflow. I won't bother posting there, since every question there nowadays is flagged as offtopic. But I will prefer a stackoverflow answer from a living being, direct and on topic, rather than anything from all those GPTs.
Wikipedia does not conduct scientific research or fact-finding. It's only a publisher. It routinely sources citations from books, journals and other sources, many of them produced by members of the "global academic, scientfic ... community"
Without those sources Wikipedia would have relatively little value, except to quote and cite to web pages
In many (most) fieds, web pages are not a substitute for scientific journals or books from academic publishers
I don't see that any different from saying "bloggers have little value, except to quote and cite to web pages". Even if I agreed, could we both agree that that itself offers value?
Delivering acedemic results to laymen is in many ways more important than the research itself, given the landscape of social media.
Funny article, though none of it would pass as a legitimate Wikipedia article because it does not cite CNN, CNBC, or any other Trustworthy™ news site included in the Wikipedia's totally neutral whiteli- I mean... allow-list.
19 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 36.3 ms ] threadAs 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.
Really hard to believe that a garbage “article” like this was produced by a human.
But also I was really pissed off by the fact that they put multiple bubbles for that that completely cover the main page when you are on mobile and a lot in desktop.
Having to scroll that much is kind of worse than cookie popup that I can close in one click.
So I realized that it is the reason why I don't go to the site anymore. It's more relaxing to get the answer directly from Google, Kagi, or a llm. Sadly for Wikipedia, they are responsible for them own demise in my opinion. And it is a good think in the hope that they will realize something when the traffic will really go down. Despite my sadness on the topic regarding the initial goal of the encyclopedia that was laudable.
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.
(see: https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/ ) (see also: that time the Scottish governmment used Scots wikipedia as a source)
In reality no apology needed from wiki, we just move on to what's better. Grokipedia v0.1 is out and from what I've seen it's shockingly better. Tons of improvements are still to come no doubt. Ive found inaccuracies in articles that I look forward to having grok remedy.
Soon we will get APIs which will slot into searxng well. The plan is to have grok be the only editor. You have to convince grok to edit a page.
Grokipedia's AI editor point of view will thus eliminate the human/ideological abuse of wikipedia.
I'm not yet decided on StackOverflow. I won't bother posting there, since every question there nowadays is flagged as offtopic. But I will prefer a stackoverflow answer from a living being, direct and on topic, rather than anything from all those GPTs.
Without those sources Wikipedia would have relatively little value, except to quote and cite to web pages
In many (most) fieds, web pages are not a substitute for scientific journals or books from academic publishers
Delivering acedemic results to laymen is in many ways more important than the research itself, given the landscape of social media.