Grokipedia.com version 0.1 is now live. Efforts to replace wikipedia with a less biased root source for the world.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://grokipedia.com/page/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

For example, the above.

Whatever people think about Elon, underestimating him is never a good idea.

Oh dear. I’ve given you the tools. It’s up to you what you do with them.

No one on the thread has said that Wikipedia is unbiased.

Thats not how critical discussions work. It probably explains why you have failed to persuade anyone to your point of view.

I haven't seen anyone say that Wikipedia is unbiased. We all know it is but that doesn't mean Grok will be improvement. Elon Musk is extremely biased and has taken grok down for reprogramming several times because he didn't like answers it gave

Joe Rogan's interview with Mark Zuckerberg was also an eye-opener. Predictably, it was misrepresented by the "liberal" media as sexism when it really wasn't at all.

The burden is on the person who makes a claim to support that claim. This is Grownup Debating 101.

Fair. I was thinking about PPs who put a lot of weight on the contributary model and the transparency of comments and history as a counterbalance to bias.

The link I posted (which is I admit a long read) shows how in reality this can devolve from "the best evidenced and least biased content will be the content that endures" to a war of attrition where the content of the person most determined to win and best at manipulating the administrative mechanisms behind the content is what endures.

And yes I have watched Musk go from free speech champion to censor, just as the left did before him. The tendency for this to happen would seem to be a classic example of the corruption of power.

you’ll learn your lesson in time. Brainwashed cultist. He still doesn’t give a flying f**k about you and he never will. He’ll be happy to see bloodshed whilst they laugh their their heads at the stupidity of people like you who think they care. Also I’m a political atheist but I’d rather be socialist than an elite bootlicker

Good for you man, good for you xxx

What’s so difficult about reading the Trump entry in Grokipedia? I even provided examples ( and omissions) from it to assist. What else is required?

It's usual to provide a link, or other clear and unamibiguous reference, to the material you cite or critique.

It’s quite literally the source the whole thread is based upon, ie. what OP linked to originally. It smacks of partisanship and petty avoidance to insist on a “source” in this instance.

However, the clear and unambiguous reference - and I have made several times - is the Trump entry in Grokipedia. This one:

https://grokipedia.com/page/Donald_Trump

Another: January 6 is reimagined as a peaceful day out that Trump had nothing to do with.

Well, that comment aged like milk. We've seen bits of the leaked Michael Prescott report, with its condemnation of how BBC Panorama doctored Trump's speech to frame him for incitement that never happened, since then.

Um. I recall on Jan 6 watching it play out live on TV and via Twitter. I saw some of Trump’s tweets that were later deleted. He bears much blame. Sorry.

Kool-Aid=TDS

A million times this. These men are not our friends.

Also, try actually using Wikipedia. It has two important principles: references must be provided; and editing is open source and rigourously debated. Whatever slop musk produces will not be similarly rigourous.

Please read the link I posted. It dives deeply into a real world example of how one very determined man has introduced deep biases into Wikipedia by gaming and manipulating exactly the mechanisms that were intended to enforce impartiality.

It is a salient lesson. If the mechanisms that enforce impartiality can themselves be corrupted, the resulting bias is worse because people assume it cannot happen and so trust the biased information without checking.

That’s literally untrue.

source’s must be provided yes but those sources are neither reliable nor unbiased given the daily mail
is not allowed but pink news is.

editing is theoretically open source but in reality any subject of any contention is locked down and only very known accounts are allowed to edit so that means established voices which are only ever activist far left, trans women are women voices. See the talk pages for the sandie peggie case for indirect proof.

There is a reason wikipedia is not accepted by universities, schools or any valid institution. It can be edited by literally anyone and can't be challenged. You must think we came down in the last shower! Just look at how Gender Critical feminists are described. Look at how Posie Parker is written about. Let Women Speak. The head moderator is a TRANSWOMAN, ffs! We were never going to get a fair go on wiki. Never will. Even on Reddit they talk about removing links on wiki that show us in a fair light. They brag about it, in fact. Martina Navratilova has said the wiki page on her has her hitting (with the tennis racket) in the wrong hand, and she, of all people, isn't even allowed to edit it or correct it! Her own page! So don't give us this bullshit about wikipedia having 'two important principles'. What a load of f'ing baloney! Bullshit! Musk's programme, as biased as he/it is, can't be any worse than wikipedia. Wikipedia is fucken dumpster fire with the credibility of a turd, and is banned from all schools and universities and colleges for a good reason.

I haven't been an active Wikipedia editor for quite a while, but if you know the back end of the site, it's very obvious how the mechanisms that Jimmy and Larry put into place to avoid bias have been turned into ways to enforce bias.

I was involved in a small way in exposing Johann Hari's activities, and that was an eye opener for me in terms of how Hari was able to game the system - for instance, using multiple sockpuppet accounts when the rules strictly forbid accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. Hari's exposure had to happen offsite, and under WP rules it couldn't even be discussed until a "reliable" third party source had reported on it. It became a huge issue for a shortish while, until the WP honchos shut it down, assured us that they had new processes that would prevent anything similar happening again... and I notice Hari's page has been cleaned up to obscure what the whole scandal was about.

That was quite a long time ago, and gaming of the site rules has got much worse since.

I will say that the right wing or far right mirror sites (Conservapedia, Infogalactic) have been absolute failures, partly because they don't have the base of volunteer editors (Wiki has many fewer active editors than people think, but few is more than none) and partly because they're not attempting to do anything more than replace Wiki's biases with their own biases.

Grokipedia seems like something different to me, and it's obvious the AI building it is extremely powerful. From looking at some fairly niche topics that I have knowledge of, it's not perfect but it's pretty good, the articles are often much more comprehensive than WP, and the AI is creating quite balanced "some people say x, others say y" sections which I find more useful than WP's standard "here's what Paul Krugman and Owen Jones think".

So I think it's an interesting experiment in what AI can do. Which makes it worth following for me. If it was just a Wikipedia clone with the existing WP bias replaced by Musk's eccentric opinions, which several PPs assume, I wouldn't say that.

That’s not taking it down because he didn’t like the answers it’s called software development. You release 0.1 MVP and you test it in the wild then iterate it. It was stress tested by the public, issues found, issues fixed and publically talked about and version 0.2 released. That’s how this works.

Of course she is able to edit things, the edit just needs to cite an independent source. (It is trivially easy to set up an account, email/wiki, that is [email protected] or whatever and then claim to have a third arm, which is why external links are required)

I've had to go through this for my DS entry, with his consent, because there was an inaccuracy. I had no luck with (paraphrasing) "I know my son and this is now correct" and was persistently reverted back to the incorrect information.

Only after providing a link to back up what I was saying was the inaccuracy corrected and it remains so.

Re PP, her entry isn't flattering but (1) it's a virtual encyclopedia not a PR channel (2) all the various statements and episodes are verifiable and have links to allow the reader to do so if they wish.

And the reason the Daily Mail isn't considered reliable as a source is not a political stance but because they continually publish content that requires "significant revision". An example of this is the certainty they originally portrayed a school as letting their pupils identity as cats, when it was a crass importation of a meme stemming from the shameful need of US schools to have litter trays for mass shootings.

She has tried. They wouldn't let her. Though I don't know how long ago she last tried.

Please read the link I posted earlier that goes into some detail about how the "reliable sources" rules have been manipulated and compromised to enforce rather than reduce bias.

Given that these mechanisms are clearly something that incrases your trust in Wikipedia I am very interested to know what you will think about that once you read it.