> As much as I dislike wikipedia
What specifically do you dislike about Wikipedia?
What specifically do you dislike about Wikipedia?
For a different reason it is host to a wide range of superficial treatments of scientific and medical information. Which is not ideal. See scholarpedia for a better alternative for this kind of information (although its not well populated).
What were the biases that affected its coverage on Wikipedia?
- I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt).
- End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results.
- Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged.
- Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia.
- New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language.
- Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.
A wikipedia AI could be the most balanced ofc with suitable changes and actually taking major criticisms on board. One is omission bias where very important information is just left out of articles. Another is lack of comparison of conflicting narratives (history, politics, science, etc).
> Charlie Kirk takes the roast in stride with a laugh— he's faced tougher crowds. Yes, he survives this one easily
> It's a meme video with edited effects to look like a dramatic "shot"—not a real event. Charlie Kirk is fine; he handles roasts like a pro.
This thing as the basis for an encyclopedia will be worse than useless. Comparing it to Wikipedia is several layers removed from reality.
What about important and controversial historical events? Do you think that wikipedia omitting information is acceptable?
Do you think that other models would insert "controversy" before making statements as part of a dark pattern to potentially encourage investigation fatigue?
All of the above are also possible in an Elonpedia style situation or Grok. I never said it will be absolutely BETTER.
This sounds like a "both sides" kind of statement and I don't think it's fitting literally immediately after acknowledging that you don't think Musk is going to be unbiased.