5 ms·

As it is, Grokipedia is not a threat to Wikipedia because relative to Wikipedia, almost nobody is using it. Additionally, an encyclopedia reader likely cares a

by Borgz 7mo ago

As it is, Grokipedia is not a threat to Wikipedia because relative to Wikipedia, almost nobody is using it. Additionally, an encyclopedia reader likely cares about accuracy significantly more than average.

vkou 7mo ago
> As it is, Grokipedia is not a threat to Wikipedia because relative to Wikipedia, almost nobody is using it. For now. With a little collusion, and a lot of money, it can be pushed as the front page of the internet. What are you going to do if Google and Bing are convinced to rank its bullshit over Wikipedia? Most people don't change the defaults.
- Marsymars 7mo ago
  > For now. With a little collusion, and a lot of money, it can be pushed as the front page of the internet. I know it has come up near the front of at least one of my Kagi searches, because it's now on my blocklist.
  - phba 7mo ago
    Yup, same for DuckDuckGo.
munchler 7mo ago
I remember when Fox News was considered irrelevant compared to mainstream news outlets. Don’t underestimate the reach of billionaires with an ideological agenda.
- tstrimple 7mo ago
  Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news network for over two decades. They've had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC for most of their existence. Calling them anything other than "mainstream" is just supporting their propaganda. They've always branded themselves as the scrappy outsider because it plays well with their audience, not because it reflects reality.
  - munchler 7mo ago
    Yes, and I’m talking about the time before that, when experts doubted whether Fox could survive. (I’m old.)
  - dragonwriter 7mo ago
    > Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news network for over two decades. Yeah, but cable news only displaced local and broadcast TV news as the main news source after 9/11, and already by 2010 had itself been displaced by online media. There was only a very brief moment in history where "the #1 rated cable news network" was really an indicator of being a mainstream news source.
- rbanffy 7mo ago
  > Don’t underestimate the reach of billionaires with an ideological agenda. Or the audience's need to have their wrong opinions validated.
lich_king 7mo ago
Nah. Wikipedia is popular because it is the #1 search result for a lot of stuff. Most of people going there just want to look up something for a homework assignment, online argument, or whatever. If Grokipedia has an error rate 5%, compared to 1% for Wikipedia, it's probably still fine. If Wikipedia traffic shrinks down just to the true "encyclopedia reader" crowd, they will be in trouble, because I suspect that's less than 10% of their current donations. And Grokipedia is already starting to crop up in search results.
- 20after4 7mo ago
  Wikipedia has an endowment big enough to sustain the site's basic maintenance, essentially forever. If donations disappeared then they would have to severely cut spending, however, I don't think it would be an existential threat.
tptacek 7mo ago
It would arguably be a benefit to Wikipedia to be pulled from Google search results, since Google prominence is the root of a huge fraction of all the misbehavior on the site.
- rbanffy 7mo ago
  If nobody ever finds the website, there will be no misbehavior. Genius.
  - JKCalhoun 7mo ago
    Security through obscurity!
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    Obviously, people would continue to go to "Wikipedia", and the encyclopedia itself wouldn't be hidden from Google, but Wikipedia pages on arbitrary subjects wouldn't be at the top of search rankings simply by dint of being Wikipedia pages.
    - rbanffy 7mo ago
      It's likelier it'd be forgotten in a couple months. I imagine they already have observed a substantial decrease in traffic due to AI chatbots and Google's AI summaries.

by Borgz 7mo ago

vkou 7mo ago

> As it is, Grokipedia is not a threat to Wikipedia because relative to Wikipedia, almost nobody is using it. For now. With a little collusion, and a lot of money, it can be pushed as the front page of the internet. What are you going to do if Google and Bing are convinced to rank its bullshit over Wikipedia? Most people don't change the defaults.

Marsymars 7mo ago
> For now. With a little collusion, and a lot of money, it can be pushed as the front page of the internet. I know it has come up near the front of at least one of my Kagi searches, because it's now on my blocklist.
- phba 7mo ago
  Yup, same for DuckDuckGo.

munchler 7mo ago

I remember when Fox News was considered irrelevant compared to mainstream news outlets. Don’t underestimate the reach of billionaires with an ideological agenda.

tstrimple 7mo ago
Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news network for over two decades. They've had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC for most of their existence. Calling them anything other than "mainstream" is just supporting their propaganda. They've always branded themselves as the scrappy outsider because it plays well with their audience, not because it reflects reality.
- munchler 7mo ago
  Yes, and I’m talking about the time before that, when experts doubted whether Fox could survive. (I’m old.)
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news network for over two decades. Yeah, but cable news only displaced local and broadcast TV news as the main news source after 9/11, and already by 2010 had itself been displaced by online media. There was only a very brief moment in history where "the #1 rated cable news network" was really an indicator of being a mainstream news source.
rbanffy 7mo ago
> Don’t underestimate the reach of billionaires with an ideological agenda. Or the audience's need to have their wrong opinions validated.

lich_king 7mo ago

Nah. Wikipedia is popular because it is the #1 search result for a lot of stuff. Most of people going there just want to look up something for a homework assignment, online argument, or whatever. If Grokipedia has an error rate 5%, compared to 1% for Wikipedia, it's probably still fine. If Wikipedia traffic shrinks down just to the true "encyclopedia reader" crowd, they will be in trouble, because I suspect that's less than 10% of their current donations. And Grokipedia is already starting to crop up in search results.

20after4 7mo ago
Wikipedia has an endowment big enough to sustain the site's basic maintenance, essentially forever. If donations disappeared then they would have to severely cut spending, however, I don't think it would be an existential threat.

tptacek 7mo ago

It would arguably be a benefit to Wikipedia to be pulled from Google search results, since Google prominence is the root of a huge fraction of all the misbehavior on the site.

rbanffy 7mo ago
If nobody ever finds the website, there will be no misbehavior. Genius.
- JKCalhoun 7mo ago
  Security through obscurity!
- tptacek 7mo ago
  Obviously, people would continue to go to "Wikipedia", and the encyclopedia itself wouldn't be hidden from Google, but Wikipedia pages on arbitrary subjects wouldn't be at the top of search rankings simply by dint of being Wikipedia pages.
  - rbanffy 7mo ago
    It's likelier it'd be forgotten in a couple months. I imagine they already have observed a substantial decrease in traffic due to AI chatbots and Google's AI summaries.