2 ms·

I'm expecting a full court legal attack on Wikipedia at some point. It's just too good for information, and companies would rather you use their chatbot to regu

I'm expecting a full court legal attack on Wikipedia at some point. It's just too good for information, and companies would rather you use their chatbot to regurgitate that info now that they have their own copies. Google was already built to pretend as if they had some magic system giving you "Answers" that were 95% just the text of the infobox they used to have for wikipedia on the side. It's going to suddenly be extremely valuable that wikipedia didn't settle for having a small rainy day fund and instead ceaselessly grabbed every fucking donation they could for two decades so they can fight such a legal battle.

pvab3 11d ago
on what basis?
nephihaha 11d ago
Wikipedia is not a challenge to the system. If it were, it would be excluded from search results, much like blogs are now.
- mitxela 10d ago
  This became obvious to me when from 2023-2025 they refused to call it anything other than "Israel-Hamas war" It's since been renamed to "Gaza genocide", as it should have been all along - but it took forever to get there. This is because of their policy of only mirroring what mainstream media outlets are saying.
  - swaghali 10d ago
    It’s the only “genocide” in history where the population being genocided grew during their genocide.
    - mitxela 10d ago
      this is not correct
      - swaghali 10d ago
        Are you disputing that Gaza had more births than reported deaths during this period, or do you have other examples of “genocides” where the population grew during their genocide?
        mitxela 10d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Account created 1 hour ago and only made these two comments, no others. Dang should investigate where these bots are coming from.
        swaghali 10d ago
        Funny how you led with a desire to get Wikipedia to align with one side in a conflict, and an opposition to the “mainstream” having no diversity of opinion in your view, yet the moment you are confronted with alternative viewpoints and facts you refuse to engage with the content, and instead try to silence views that you don’t like.
  - HappyPanacea 10d ago
    This tells us more about your bias then Wikipedia bias, observe that WWII and Bosnian War have their own Wikipedia articles regardless of any genocide occurring in them.
jasonfarnon 10d ago
I don't think there's much grounds for a serious legal attack at this point, and also it would look so horrible from a PR standpoint no non-desperate would dare it. Anyway, google has been steering enough traffic away, now that its AI jumps in with an answer and the wikipedia link which 99% of the response is based on is always hidden with a bunch of other overlaid icons. Google has surely managed to kill off a bunch of reddit and stackoverflow traffic with this trick.
khafra 10d ago
Why would any chatbot provider attack Wikipedia *legally*? Captcha is fully solved, and agents are fully capable of acting as editors, pushing any agenda desired by the user.
- mitxela 10d ago
  Strangers can't really edit Wikipedia any more, especially if their edit is suspicious. It's a closed system despite the appearance. An anti-vandal bot or human will quickly revert your edit.
  - HappyPanacea 10d ago
    This is not really true in my experience aside from protected articles; however it is true that sometimes another human will make an edit which degrade the article quality or insist on keeping something that shouldn't be kept. Also, Articles on contentious subjects tend to be problematic.

pvab3 11d ago

on what basis?

nephihaha 11d ago

Wikipedia is not a challenge to the system. If it were, it would be excluded from search results, much like blogs are now.

mitxela 10d ago
This became obvious to me when from 2023-2025 they refused to call it anything other than "Israel-Hamas war" It's since been renamed to "Gaza genocide", as it should have been all along - but it took forever to get there. This is because of their policy of only mirroring what mainstream media outlets are saying.
- swaghali 10d ago
  It’s the only “genocide” in history where the population being genocided grew during their genocide.
  - mitxela 10d ago
    this is not correct
    - swaghali 10d ago
      Are you disputing that Gaza had more births than reported deaths during this period, or do you have other examples of “genocides” where the population grew during their genocide?
      - mitxela 10d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Account created 1 hour ago and only made these two comments, no others. Dang should investigate where these bots are coming from.
        swaghali 10d ago
        Funny how you led with a desire to get Wikipedia to align with one side in a conflict, and an opposition to the “mainstream” having no diversity of opinion in your view, yet the moment you are confronted with alternative viewpoints and facts you refuse to engage with the content, and instead try to silence views that you don’t like.
- HappyPanacea 10d ago
  This tells us more about your bias then Wikipedia bias, observe that WWII and Bosnian War have their own Wikipedia articles regardless of any genocide occurring in them.

jasonfarnon 10d ago

I don't think there's much grounds for a serious legal attack at this point, and also it would look so horrible from a PR standpoint no non-desperate would dare it. Anyway, google has been steering enough traffic away, now that its AI jumps in with an answer and the wikipedia link which 99% of the response is based on is always hidden with a bunch of other overlaid icons. Google has surely managed to kill off a bunch of reddit and stackoverflow traffic with this trick.

khafra 10d ago

Why would any chatbot provider attack Wikipedia *legally*? Captcha is fully solved, and agents are fully capable of acting as editors, pushing any agenda desired by the user.

mitxela 10d ago
Strangers can't really edit Wikipedia any more, especially if their edit is suspicious. It's a closed system despite the appearance. An anti-vandal bot or human will quickly revert your edit.
- HappyPanacea 10d ago
  This is not really true in my experience aside from protected articles; however it is true that sometimes another human will make an edit which degrade the article quality or insist on keeping something that shouldn't be kept. Also, Articles on contentious subjects tend to be problematic.