Elon Musk Eyes "Grokipedia" to Challenge Wikipedia's Accuracy(coincentral.com)
coincentral.com
Elon Musk Eyes "Grokipedia" to Challenge Wikipedia's Accuracy
https://coincentral.com/elon-musk-eyes-grokipedia-to-challenge-wikipedias-accuracy/
22 comments
This sort of thing has been tried before. The "conservapedia" exists, and is pretty obviously biased and rigged.
You misunderstand the objective this is not to make a right-wing wiki. But a neutral wiki.
If Wikipedia was called "liberalopedia", not many people would use it either.
And to their credit it didn't start out with any bias. I'll be downvoted for this I know, but it has a bias which developed over time.
For example it blacklists Fox News but allows CNN or MSNBC as valid citable sources.
To verify, and not just take my statement as truth, search for yourself "perennial source list Wikipedia".
There a whole host of other problems, including anonymity and partiality of the high level bureaucrats or admins. It started out as a good system but morphed into one with a lot of bias, because if the bias in high ranking volunteers, which is very hard to get rid of.
I do not know how Elon will plan to avoid similar bias, it is indeed a difficult human engineering problem - not necessity software engineering problem.
If Wikipedia was called "liberalopedia", not many people would use it either.
And to their credit it didn't start out with any bias. I'll be downvoted for this I know, but it has a bias which developed over time.
For example it blacklists Fox News but allows CNN or MSNBC as valid citable sources.
To verify, and not just take my statement as truth, search for yourself "perennial source list Wikipedia".
There a whole host of other problems, including anonymity and partiality of the high level bureaucrats or admins. It started out as a good system but morphed into one with a lot of bias, because if the bias in high ranking volunteers, which is very hard to get rid of.
I do not know how Elon will plan to avoid similar bias, it is indeed a difficult human engineering problem - not necessity software engineering problem.
As we're often reminded here on HN, everything and everyone has a bias. Elon's "Grokipedia" won't be neutral, and relative to Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias, the conservapedia is an apt analogy. It's specifically not neutral.
> For example it blacklists Fox News but allows CNN or MSNBC as valid citable sources.
Gee I wonder why!
Maybe because of the constant lying, corruption, and absolute MAGA cult bias.
Wikipedia is biased towards truth, which incidentally looks like left-leaning bias to MAGA since they constantly lie about EVERYTHING
Honestly I can’t believe I have to read this kind of garbage on HN.
Gee I wonder why!
Maybe because of the constant lying, corruption, and absolute MAGA cult bias.
Wikipedia is biased towards truth, which incidentally looks like left-leaning bias to MAGA since they constantly lie about EVERYTHING
Honestly I can’t believe I have to read this kind of garbage on HN.
At this point, I'm not sure anyone sees Wikipedia as accurate. It's controlled by a handful of (usually activist) moderators that block any updates that oppose their personal beliefs, even if true.
The edit history is public. If you think an article has been tampered with, it's just as easy to verify as a bug in Open Source code.
Plus, if you're citing Wikipedia verbatim instead of using it as an aggregator for secondary sources, you're using it wrong.
Plus, if you're citing Wikipedia verbatim instead of using it as an aggregator for secondary sources, you're using it wrong.
It's not that easy.
There's bureaucracy that makes this nearly impossible.
Wikipedia sources include liberal news media (e.g. CNN) but blacklist others (Fox News). So it is highly biased by the rules they set up.
To challenge the sources you need to become an admin, of which there are only 82. And they are anonymous, so you cannot call them out for misinformation or bias.
The edit history is present and you can see "tampering" or bias on many articles, in the form of reverted clarifications citing blacklisted sources or other reasons. There are many examples, one that I was following last year was about "Yasuke", which turned out to be based on very debatable source at best, or likely complete fabrication since it was propagated by one historian who was proven to be fraudulent.
It's been called out many times. Most recently by the 1 and half hour long interview of Wikipedia employee by Tucker Carlson.
But just because the history is there, it doesn't really matter. Some random person looking something up will not see the history.
There's bureaucracy that makes this nearly impossible.
Wikipedia sources include liberal news media (e.g. CNN) but blacklist others (Fox News). So it is highly biased by the rules they set up.
To challenge the sources you need to become an admin, of which there are only 82. And they are anonymous, so you cannot call them out for misinformation or bias.
The edit history is present and you can see "tampering" or bias on many articles, in the form of reverted clarifications citing blacklisted sources or other reasons. There are many examples, one that I was following last year was about "Yasuke", which turned out to be based on very debatable source at best, or likely complete fabrication since it was propagated by one historian who was proven to be fraudulent.
It's been called out many times. Most recently by the 1 and half hour long interview of Wikipedia employee by Tucker Carlson.
But just because the history is there, it doesn't really matter. Some random person looking something up will not see the history.
It literally is that easy. The edit history is public precisely so you can identify when the hasbara and wumao goons plaster up their propaganda. If they make a citation that comes from a sketchy or unsubstantiated source, you can contest it and have the misinformation removed. This happens pretty often with tabloid-aligned cable outlets, including Rupert Murdoch's Fox network. Obviously it's less of a problem for outlets with fewer retractions, such as Reuters and AP. If that's "highly biased" then Fox needs to reflect on their own opportunism and journalistic integrity.
Like I said originally - Wikipedia is an annotated source aggregator. If it so happens that the liberal-aligned sources are the only ones reporting on war or hate crimes, then you'll have to excuse the moderators for ignoring the protests of Fox News Australia and Times of Israel. Your reputation matters, in journalism.
Like I said originally - Wikipedia is an annotated source aggregator. If it so happens that the liberal-aligned sources are the only ones reporting on war or hate crimes, then you'll have to excuse the moderators for ignoring the protests of Fox News Australia and Times of Israel. Your reputation matters, in journalism.
I do. Can you name some specific examples where Wikipedia is not accurate? You can’t throw these accusations without proofs or reputable sources.
[deleted]
Sadly, I'm seeing a business model here. Anyone who doesn't like Wikipedia can subscribe to their own private "AI-Corrected Bubblepedia". (Maybe there's a "free, with advertising" version?) The AI "works for you, 24x7x365", to make sure you only see the <cough> real truth <cough/>. If you notice any biases or errors (or change your mind, or mood, or intoxication level), "your private AI" will immediately "fix" your entire personalized Bubblepedia, to fully reflect your suggestions and corrections.
Really, why would any right-minded person want to settle for Wikipedia?
Really, why would any right-minded person want to settle for Wikipedia?
Elon Musk has no credibility here.
He has a documented history (charitably) overly-optimistic claims and (accurately) lies. On multiple occasions, he (or an unnamed disgruntled employee who happens to share his exact views) has manipulated the output of his own chatbot to push particular political positions.
He's very unlikely to actually do this, and if he did, it would not do what he describes.
He has a documented history (charitably) overly-optimistic claims and (accurately) lies. On multiple occasions, he (or an unnamed disgruntled employee who happens to share his exact views) has manipulated the output of his own chatbot to push particular political positions.
He's very unlikely to actually do this, and if he did, it would not do what he describes.
He's very unlikely to actually do this
All he would be doing is documenting the fact that right wing propaganda is poorly rooted in facts.
But then again, a lot if what Musk does is the same. FSD is not really "full self driving". And he has filed a motion in federal court to keep crash data away from the public.
So he may try to do this but he won't do it in the straightforward way you would expect. For example, he may combine this with using legal means to impede wikipedia.
All he would be doing is documenting the fact that right wing propaganda is poorly rooted in facts.
But then again, a lot if what Musk does is the same. FSD is not really "full self driving". And he has filed a motion in federal court to keep crash data away from the public.
So he may try to do this but he won't do it in the straightforward way you would expect. For example, he may combine this with using legal means to impede wikipedia.
How is this any different than platforms like Blue Sky? I've noticed that when the censorship happens silently from the left, most people either don't know it's happening or completely ignore it.
I've compared the bias from X and other platforms and you generally get both sides of the argument. Blue sky bans anything not left-leaning. This is evident by first-hand accounts and the fact that you never see both sides of an argument.
I've compared the bias from X and other platforms and you generally get both sides of the argument. Blue sky bans anything not left-leaning. This is evident by first-hand accounts and the fact that you never see both sides of an argument.
... What's being censored on Bluesky, exactly? Like, are you complaining about the voluntary blocklists some users opt into?
Bluesky is a _hostile environment_ for the far-right, in that people won't be nice to them, and might put them on blocklists, but they're absolutely allowed.
Bluesky is a _hostile environment_ for the far-right, in that people won't be nice to them, and might put them on blocklists, but they're absolutely allowed.
altrego99(1)
> I've compared the bias from X and other platforms
Mind sharing your methodology? I doubt a single person could accurately determine this without a very well laid out process.
Every study I’m finding, even when specifically searching for left biases, concludes Twitter is very right leaning. Which makes sense: Its owner is very openly right-wing, repeatedly posts right-wing-leaning fabrications, has shown to be thin-skinned and actively amplifies his own account and those who spout right-wing views, so it’s no wonder most who remain are those who agree.
Mind sharing your methodology? I doubt a single person could accurately determine this without a very well laid out process.
Every study I’m finding, even when specifically searching for left biases, concludes Twitter is very right leaning. Which makes sense: Its owner is very openly right-wing, repeatedly posts right-wing-leaning fabrications, has shown to be thin-skinned and actively amplifies his own account and those who spout right-wing views, so it’s no wonder most who remain are those who agree.
He has, in fact, negative credibility, if such a thing can even exist.
The incentives are completely backwards in his case, and his history shows a blatant disregard for accuracy or responsible use of information.
The incentives are completely backwards in his case, and his history shows a blatant disregard for accuracy or responsible use of information.