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.

Then why is Pink News considered authoritative... your arguments fall down with the smallest observation of the actual world rather than what wiki editors say about it. It's bollocks.

WP consistently declare TWAW/TMAM in WikiVoice and consider gender critical views to be WP:FRINGE. Dissenting editors get indefinite bans pretty quickly. It is an activist swamp, not an impartial crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

The mechanisms put in place to try to eliminate bias are gameable and are gamed all the time.

Here's an example of how Wikipedia's reliable sources rule works in practice.

The New York Post is blacklisted on Wikipedia. You can't use it as a source. Now yes, the Post is a tabloid and it is a bit clickbaity, but it also does journalism. That's why its coverage of Hunter Biden's activities had to be shut down by Big Tech during the 2020 election.

I've been keeping an eye on Hunter Biden's wiki page for several years. It's very interesting. Until quite recently a reader would have got the impression that Hunter is a beloved and universally respected public servant, and mean nasty Republicans have been making up baseless conspiracy theories about him, but those stories are mean and nasty and baseless, and if mysterious foreign businessmen give Hunter large sums of money for no obvious reason, there's nothing shady about that.

If you read the NY Post, they'd flat out tell you that the Biden family are corrupt grifters. But the NY Post is not a reliable source.

Now, since Joe Biden is no longer president, and reliable sources are prepared to allow criticism of him, and even coverage of Hunter's interesting legal challenges, Wikipedia's position has become untenable, so Hunter's page is a convoluted mess that mentions his dodgy activities while putting in lots of disclaimers insisting that there was nothing dodgy about them, and certainly nothing dodgy linked to Joe. For instance, Joe getting that Ukrainian prosecutor fired is still a false conspiracy theory, because Joe denied it and reliable sources backed Joe up, and the totally honest diamond geezer government of Ukraine backed Joe up.

The upshot of all this is that, if you'd spent the past five years reading the NY Post, you'd be significantly better informed about Hunter Biden than if you relied on Wikipedia, and if you read Hunter's wiki page now the conclusion you will draw is "this Hunter Biden guy seems really dodgy, and for some reason Wikipedia is trying to hide that".

Now multiply that across any of the controversial issues Wikipedia covers. It isn't achieving accuracy by crowdsourcing. What it's doing is sustaining a narrative by cliquesourcing.

I am stowing "cliquesourcing" in my lexicon for future use.

It doesn't give me complete trust but I do consider it comparing favourably to a team of software engineers doing His bidding which managed to get grok to publicly declare it was mechahitler before having to tone down the horrific far right bias. Yes, I freely admit to being picky about not supporting open Nazis...

So you'd rather have a known shit show that refuses to acknowledge any mistakes, biases or faults and hides it all behind locked doors - to a product that was publicly released as a 0.1, problems spotted, acknowledge and dealt with, in public and continues to get better, openly in front of the entire world?

What a fucked up view you have, so very bitter about anyone to the right of chairman mau that you put any good idea in the bin?

Also Grok is not Grokipedia. don't confuse them.

Interesting discussion.

@SionnachRuadh do you mean that Hari's Wikipedia entry doesn't reflect the details of how hard it was to ferret him out? There is a section on what happened along with other details of his seemingly complete lack of integrity.

Also, how do people feel about grokipedia describing intelligent design as a "scientific" theory? That seems a pretty biased statement to me. Biased in exactly the opposite direction to Wikipedia. If you wanted to be unbiased you would have an article which started by saying the definition was contentious and explain both sides.

I'm no Musk fanboy, but all the popular AIs have been found to say some pretty dreadful things. I don't think Grok is unique here.

Now you have read the link I posted, what are your thoughts on those examples of how a determined (or obsessive, depending on your perspective) Wiki editor was able to manipulate the "Reliable Sources" and references requirement to deliberately introduce bias and supress different perspectives?

The Wikipedia "Talk" pages for controversial topics would make Humphrey Appleby himself salute in admiration. Some well-meaning casual user wades in saying hey, I added xyz factual information, and is immediately bombarded with a string of officious WS:BLAH links and an immediate rollback of whatever they tried to do, never directly saying "we are deleting this because we disagree politically" but just piling on bureaucratic requirement after requirement.

I don't particularly see that grokipedia will solve this problem at a global level, but it's probably useful for some of the particular topics that wikipedia is currently very unreliable for.

Rather amusing that none of the Musk-Hating Wikipedia Fans posting on a Feminism Women's Rights Board have so far engaged with the issue that Wikipedia is incontrovertibly systemically sexist and misogynistic. Almost like that is something that is not even on their RADAR.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5434861-grokipediacom-version-01-is-now-live-efforts-to-replace-wikipedia-with-a-less-biased-root-source-for-the-world?reply=148285021