5 ms·

> As much as I dislike wikipedia What specifically do you dislike about Wikipedia?

physarum_salad 1y ago
It is a great example of "objectivism" where on the surface it seems neutral and rational but actually is the subject of intense motivations that corrupt the content. This is particularly true for anything related to politics, history, nation states, celebrity tech bros, and so on. An average article on "the history of bicycles" is not a problem and not what I am referring to ofc. For a different reason it is host to a wide range of superficial treatments of scientific and medical information. Which is not ideal. See scholarpedia for a better alternative for this kind of information (although its not well populated).
- paulhebert 1y ago
  Do you have specific examples where you think the biases show?
  - physarum_salad 1y ago
    For example, the page on Adult neurogenesis had an overreliance on early and limited evidence in 2010s with lots of editing wars occurring by academics. Then it got shifted to "controversial" which is better but the process for dealing with new scientific results is not ideal.
    - paulhebert 1y ago
      Thanks for responding with an example! I’m not very familiar with that topic. What were the biases that affected its coverage on Wikipedia?
      - physarum_salad 1y ago
        Academics with diverging views just started editing wikipedia to suit their views and the whole thing was very preliminary and not accurate for a long time. Then it was bailed into a "controversial" section. I intentionally picked a mild example lol.
        paulhebert 1y ago
        Thanks, that’s helpful! What would your ideal outcome be in a situation like that where there is a scientific controversy?
        physarum_salad 1y ago
        We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be confusing and controversial. - I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt). - End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results. - Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged. - Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia. - New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language. - Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.
- foxes 1y ago
  You really think Elon Musk is going to make a non biased wikipedia??
  - physarum_salad 1y ago
    Definitely not! It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. It is all down to whether you think Grok is more thorough with controversial topics, scientific and medical information, etc compared with the current human edit-a-thon on wikipedia. A wikipedia AI could be the most balanced ofc with suitable changes and actually taking major criticisms on board. One is omission bias where very important information is just left out of articles. Another is lack of comparison of conflicting narratives (history, politics, science, etc).
    - miltonlost 1y ago
      What topics, specifically, will Grokpedia be better on? Which race has the lowest IQs? Whether trans people are mentally ill and should be committed? Whether a CEO should be able to run 5 different companies while on ketamine? Was Hitler really all that bad?
    - mynameisash 1y ago
      > It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. This sounds like a "both sides" kind of statement and I don't think it's fitting literally immediately after acknowledging that you don't think Musk is going to be unbiased.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - mostlysimilar 1y ago
      https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 > Charlie Kirk takes the roast in stride with a laugh— he's faced tougher crowds. Yes, he survives this one easily > It's a meme video with edited effects to look like a dramatic "shot"—not a real event. Charlie Kirk is fine; he handles roasts like a pro. This thing as the basis for an encyclopedia will be worse than useless. Comparing it to Wikipedia is several layers removed from reality.

It is a great example of "objectivism" where on the surface it seems neutral and rational but actually is the subject of intense motivations that corrupt the content. This is particularly true for anything related to politics, history, nation states, celebrity tech bros, and so on. An average article on "the history of bicycles" is not a problem and not what I am referring to ofc. For a different reason it is host to a wide range of superficial treatments of scientific and medical information. Which is not ideal. See scholarpedia for a better alternative for this kind of information (although its not well populated).

paulhebert 1y ago
Do you have specific examples where you think the biases show?
- physarum_salad 1y ago
  For example, the page on Adult neurogenesis had an overreliance on early and limited evidence in 2010s with lots of editing wars occurring by academics. Then it got shifted to "controversial" which is better but the process for dealing with new scientific results is not ideal.
  - paulhebert 1y ago
    Thanks for responding with an example! I’m not very familiar with that topic. What were the biases that affected its coverage on Wikipedia?
    - physarum_salad 1y ago
      Academics with diverging views just started editing wikipedia to suit their views and the whole thing was very preliminary and not accurate for a long time. Then it was bailed into a "controversial" section. I intentionally picked a mild example lol.
      - paulhebert 1y ago
        Thanks, that’s helpful! What would your ideal outcome be in a situation like that where there is a scientific controversy?
        physarum_salad 1y ago
        We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be confusing and controversial. - I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt). - End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results. - Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged. - Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia. - New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language. - Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.
foxes 1y ago
You really think Elon Musk is going to make a non biased wikipedia??
- physarum_salad 1y ago
  Definitely not! It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. It is all down to whether you think Grok is more thorough with controversial topics, scientific and medical information, etc compared with the current human edit-a-thon on wikipedia. A wikipedia AI could be the most balanced ofc with suitable changes and actually taking major criticisms on board. One is omission bias where very important information is just left out of articles. Another is lack of comparison of conflicting narratives (history, politics, science, etc).
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    What topics, specifically, will Grokpedia be better on? Which race has the lowest IQs? Whether trans people are mentally ill and should be committed? Whether a CEO should be able to run 5 different companies while on ketamine? Was Hitler really all that bad?
  - mynameisash 1y ago
    > It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. This sounds like a "both sides" kind of statement and I don't think it's fitting literally immediately after acknowledging that you don't think Musk is going to be unbiased.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - mostlysimilar 1y ago
    https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 > Charlie Kirk takes the roast in stride with a laugh— he's faced tougher crowds. Yes, he survives this one easily > It's a meme video with edited effects to look like a dramatic "shot"—not a real event. Charlie Kirk is fine; he handles roasts like a pro. This thing as the basis for an encyclopedia will be worse than useless. Comparing it to Wikipedia is several layers removed from reality.