4 ms·
Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. But don’t get me wrong, I also view ChatGPT conversations as
by cheschire 2y ago
Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation.
But don’t get me wrong, I also view ChatGPT conversations as being on par with pub chats as far as “confident facts” go.
I think our difference may be in how we view Wikipedia.
- ninkendo 2y ago> Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. Last I read about this, the error rate in Wikipedia was actually lower than in the Encyclopedia Britannica, by a measurable amount. This was a while back, and admittedly it only counted articles where there was an equivalent article in both (which probably gives a better picture of Wikipedia, as those kinds of “boring” articles have less vandalism…) but it’s not immediately a given that Wikipedia is just objectively bad at being accurate.