Hacker News Reader

>Ray Peat

>Seems bizarre to just not have a page on a subject discussed every day on Twitter.

The idea that if a guy writes “avocados cause cancer and honey cures it” he should be put in the encyclopedia if it gets enough retweets is the organizing principle behind grokipedia. It would be much more bizarre to expect a serious encyclopedia to work the same way for no good reason.

Other, much dumber nutrition cranks like Anthony William and Gary Null have Wikipedia pages. Fundamentally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be the place that you go to when you hear a concept and want to look up what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n...

You are welcome to join the conversation and try and convince everyone maintaining Wikipedia that random peoples' tweets should be considered a reliable source. Both those other people you mention have been mentioned multiple times in various reliable articles (see the bibliography), while the only thing I can find online about Ray Peat is something that looks a whole lot like blogspam on usnews.com.

The existence of some nutrition pseudoscientists that meet Wikipedia’s threshold of notability does not mean that being a nutrition pseudoscientist by itself qualifies a person as being sufficiently notable. Wikipedia doesn’t need an exhaustive list of every kook with weird opinions about food, there are other websites for that, like grokipedia.

If you hear a name in an internet argument, and want to know who that person is, and one site is more likely than the other to contain it, that site is definitionally the better encyclopedia in the moment. If you arbitrarily define notability so as not to include the guy who came up with the seed oil craze presently informing the federal health policy of the United States, you're just giving away part of the game for no reason. Like Stallman deliberately throwing away GPL compiler share dominance by refusing to make GCC a library, and now we've got a million proprietary LLVM compilers. Wikipedia isn't the gatekeeper of notability, such that refusing to have an article on some niche topic will prevent it getting oxygen. All it does is ensure that your first search result will be sympathetic to his fringe views, instead of critical.

This seems like you should take up your concern about Ray Peat with Wikipedia directly.

For me, it seems obvious that Ray Peat is not particularly notable — even if his self-published manuscripts made him a sort of personal hero to a handful of niche micro influencers on one of the big four social media websites. A quick google shows that he did not “come up with the seed oil craze”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_oil_misinformation

If I had to guess what’s happened here, it looks like maybe some right-wing micro influencers tweeted that Ray Peat was more notable than he really was and those tweets weren’t convincing to Wikipedia editors.

It is good to have notability standards, even if somewhat arbitrary. It protects the site and its editors from being obligated to document and take seriously every silly thing that nano-celebrities and trolls try to will into existence through their tweets.

Especially since there is already a website for exactly that, grokipedia.

TBH, Wikipedia should have pages on these cranks and point out they are cranks and that if they say the sky is blue that's because it changed color.

> Every politician's or political figure's page on Wikipedia just goes "Bob is a politician. In 2025 <list of every controversial thing imaginable>".

Are we searching for the same political figures? I just punched in three random politicians on Wikipedia (Lavrov, Rubio, Sanders) and all of their introductory paragraphs are a list of their past and present political offices. Legacy and controversy is reserved for it's own heading, or pushed into the back of the summary.

For most public officials, that seems like a fair shake. The only outliers I can think of are obviously-reviled figures like Joe Kony, Cecil Rhodes or Adolph H., who should probably get condemned above the fold for the courtesy of the reader.

Ray Peat seems completely unremarkable besides the Bronze Age Pervert group name dropping him a lot. He is mentioned in the BAP wikipedia article. It can of cause be debated, but I feel his notable is low enough for a general reader, to not warrant an article on his person.

Ive noticed similar. I dont like the site, bit hopefully wiki are away of this and learn something from it. Some pages read like they were written by zealots rather than people documenting facts.

Why have Grokipedia at all then? The site ought to just be a search field where Grok just fields a "page" on the fly for whatever the user queries.

Feels more like Grokipedia is just a fuck-you to Wikipedia and the world in general. (Oh shoot, I just misspelled Woke-apedia.)