4 ms·
Do you have a source on Wikipedia vs Britannica, because from what I heard, they were pretty close, from even early on for Wikipedia. (https://www.cnet.com/te
by dlcarrier 2y ago
Do you have a source on Wikipedia vs Britannica, because from what I heard, they were pretty close, from even early on for Wikipedia.
(https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/study-wikipedia-as-a...)
Neither is a primary source though, but the advantage of linking to an encyclopedia is that it provides a plain-English summarization of the primary sources, as well as pertinent reference to those sources.
Large language models have historically been incapable of providing sources, but newer models are gaining the ability to do so, which is making them as useful as encyclopedias. Until everyone starts using sourced output from LLMs, we get to see who is blindly trusting hallucinations.
(https://www.infodocket.com/2024/12/06/report-media-personalities-stumble-as-chatgpt-invents-presidential-pardon-history/ https://www.infodocket.com/2024/12/06/report-media-personali...)
- bookofjoe 2y ago>Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a (2005) FWIW, Perplexity Pro now provides numerous primary source references/citations for its answers.
- brudgers 2y agoEarly Wikipedia was pretty terrible in general and was even worse than Encarta relative to a printed encyclopedia. Today it is better in terms of comprehensiveness but it is still poorly written compared to the work of professional writers and editors. In part because good writing is not valued and well-written passages get arbitrary edits from amateurs.