Articles on Wikipedia are not facts. They’re the product of community contributions on a topic.
I don’t think that’s really a non-sequitur, but I guess it depends on what’s meant by facts in your epistemology.
I don’t think that’s really a non-sequitur, but I guess it depends on what’s meant by facts in your epistemology.
In short, the curation is the key differentiator between the two.
I thought accuracy is one of metrics that the models are trained for…
> Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
Wikipedia cares that its contents are taken from reliable sources, which can be independently verified. Not all news media are reliable sources, and in fact academic papers and journals and published books are generally more reliable than news media.
As far as actual truth… that seems beyond their ability to evaluate.