3 ms·
Whether they are paid or not, this represents an existential threat to Wikipedia. Without an army of competent editors, Wikipedia just becomes garbage propagand
by josefritzishere 5mo ago
Whether they are paid or not, this represents an existential threat to Wikipedia. Without an army of competent editors, Wikipedia just becomes garbage propaganda like Grokipedia.
- SanjayMehta 5mo ago[flagged]
- speedgoose 5mo agoSure but one is a lot less trustworthy than the other.
- margalabargala 5mo ago> For most topics the results are the same Sure, it frequently won't deliberately lie to you. It often does not replace facts with a party line statement. Wikipedia is far more trustworthy.
- SanjayMehta 5mo agoStrongly disagree. Wikipedo editors are allegedly "humans making an impartial judgement call." Grokipedia is just an algorithm. Humans without ethics are worse than a badly designed algorithm.
- margalabargala 5mo agoYou've now made the claim that wikipedia editors are without ethics. I see you also included all evidence to back up this baseless claim.
- dangus 5mo ago> Neither are trustworthy. Since we’ve all forgotten media literacy, what makes Wikipedia trustworthy is that sources are cited and you can inspect those sources yourself to make a judgement call on the topic at hand. There was never any such thing as blind trust. We learned in grade school how to evaluate sources and what types of sources are out there (primary and secondary sources, etc). There is some level of trust in being open, transparent, and without a profit motive. But we recognize as educated people that truth is a matter of perspective, and we can build a complete picture by compiling different perspectives. But then people like you roll in tossing casual accusations around and I guess your intention is to steer people to far less trustworthy sources than Wikipedia.
- s_dev 5mo agoThe user isn't arguing in good faith here is one of his other comments >Wikipedia could shut down permanently tomorrow and the world will be a better place. Wikipedia is a vital resource for the internet and one of humanities supreme achievements. He can certainly have whatever opinion he likes but when has opinions like this he can't be trusted.
- NordStreamYacht 5mo agoI use eb.com and so should you. So when the cofounder of Wikipedia calls it compromised, is he also arguing in bad faith?
- dangus 5mo agoI have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe some context would help. Is this a cofounder who currently works there? I don’t think this is directly relevant.
- NordStreamYacht 5mo agoLook up Larry Sanger but not on Wikipedia.
- red-iron-pine 5mo agogood faith arguments, on HN? bro you know what this site is for, right?
- SanjayMehta 5mo agoIf the argument doesn't fit the majority narrative then it's not in good faith. Aka democracy in action. I've linked in the past to a paper which shows how wikipedos use circular arguments to push a narrative.
- SanjayMehta 5mo agoYeah, I have zero good faith towards Wikipedia and the wikipedos who run it. https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
- britta 5mo agoThere are a bunch of research papers that compare Wikipedia and Grokipedia in some depth, and they've found and interpreted a lot of interesting differences. A couple of recaps from the Wikipedia Signpost, which is the internal newsletter for Wikipedians: 2026-03-10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-03-10/Recent_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2... 2026-01-15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-01-15/Recent_research#Comparing_comparisons_of_Grokipedia_vs._Wikipedia_by_three_different_research_teams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
- SanjayMehta 5mo agoCircular references back to Wikipedia? No thanks.