6 ms·
I think we need Wikipedia competitors. Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success, it was excellent at avoiding bias for quite awhile and the vast majority of a
by aeternum 1y ago
I think we need Wikipedia competitors.
Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success, it was excellent at avoiding bias for quite awhile and the vast majority of articles are extremely well written.
However it's massive popularity and dominance have also led to, well this guy put it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton#Lord_Acton's_dictum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_...
- arunharidas 1y agoElon Musk is launching Grokipedia this week as a competition to Wikipedia.
- sys_64738 1y agoLOL I just tried to search "U2" on it but it sent me to a Twitter post. That Twitter post required me to login to see if I wanted to see it. What a joke.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoAh yes, launched by the guy who keeps tweaking his own chatbot because it doesnt barf out the lies he wants it to tell.
- vkou 1y agoI'm not sure why he feels the need to launch a competitor to Conservapedia.
- delecti 1y agoIf he's aware of it, he probably considered it to be insufficiently "based".
- Keyframe 1y agoI thought you were joking, Was I wrong.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoWikipedia is fine. Bias cant be avoided, only made explicit, and the fact that you think it can means you should probably move to Conservapedia or whatever slop Musk will release.
- chermi 1y agoShouldn't it be minimized? I think it's increasing on Wikipedia. I think there's too high of a barrier for actual experts to write/edit. What's left is primarily idealogues with a certain leanings resulting in a positive feedback loop to more bias. I don't think anyone should want an echo chamber where an encyclopedia is supposed to exist. It's not there yet, but this is exactly how they form - see reddit. Yeah, yeah, let me guess, the truth has a liberal bias. But continue to insist that everyone pointing should just move somewhere else, that will certainly make it less biased and more factual.
- spelk 1y ago>Shouldn't it be minimized? I think it's increasing on Wikipedia. I think there's too high of a barrier for actual experts to write/edit. What's left is primarily idealogues with a certain leanings resulting in a positive feedback loop to more bias. I don't think anyone should want an echo chamber where an encyclopedia is supposed to exist. It's not there yet, but this is exactly how they form - see reddit. I find this kind of a fascinating social phenomena. I guess to give a personal example, I was trying to update a few pages about a country's Olympic history - that is, their Olympic bids, a few athletes, etc. Unknowingly, I had stumbled across a particular power-editor's fiefdom, because they created all these pages and they were very aggressive in policing their articles to meet a certain style, tone and their beliefs. Searching this person's username up (they went by their real name), they were closely related to that country's Olympic committee and an employee of a Ministry of Sport of sorts. The articles had lots of anonymous IP address edits from an university network this person was affiliated with in their program portfolio. There was a clear conflict of interest, and I tried to point that out when they mass-reverted my edits, but they seemed committed to accusing me of edit warring by not sandboxing my changes and waiting for their personal review and approval, and quoted at least 12 different Wikipedia policies on notability, style, acceptable citations, etc. I still feel I was in the right, but I didn't have the willpower or stamina to fight against several requests for comments, speedy deletions, etc. They did get a warning from an administrator and some detractors in the discussion threads, but they weren't willing to let it go and at that point, it wasn't fun anymore for me. I have better things to do than to fight factual and nitpicky disputes on Wikipedia.
- tokai 1y agoJust fork it, the license is permissive :^)