Hacker News Reader

Comment by SanjayMehta | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

There are a bunch of research papers that compare Wikipedia and Grokipedia in some depth, and they've found and interpreted a lot of interesting differences. A couple of recaps from the Wikipedia Signpost, which is the internal newsletter for Wikipedians:

2026-03-10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

2026-01-15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

Circular references back to Wikipedia? No thanks.

Sure but one is a lot less trustworthy than the other.

> Neither are trustworthy.

Since we’ve all forgotten media literacy, what makes Wikipedia trustworthy is that sources are cited and you can inspect those sources yourself to make a judgement call on the topic at hand.

There was never any such thing as blind trust. We learned in grade school how to evaluate sources and what types of sources are out there (primary and secondary sources, etc).

There is some level of trust in being open, transparent, and without a profit motive. But we recognize as educated people that truth is a matter of perspective, and we can build a complete picture by compiling different perspectives.

But then people like you roll in tossing casual accusations around and I guess your intention is to steer people to far less trustworthy sources than Wikipedia.

The user isn't arguing in good faith here is one of his other comments

>Wikipedia could shut down permanently tomorrow and the world will be a better place.

Wikipedia is a vital resource for the internet and one of humanities supreme achievements. He can certainly have whatever opinion he likes but when has opinions like this he can't be trusted.

Yeah, I have zero good faith towards Wikipedia and the wikipedos who run it.

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/

good faith arguments, on HN? bro you know what this site is for, right?

If the argument doesn't fit the majority narrative then it's not in good faith. Aka democracy in action.

I've linked in the past to a paper which shows how wikipedos use circular arguments to push a narrative.

I use eb.com and so should you.

So when the cofounder of Wikipedia calls it compromised, is he also arguing in bad faith?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe some context would help. Is this a cofounder who currently works there?

I don’t think this is directly relevant.

Look up Larry Sanger but not on Wikipedia.

> For most topics the results are the same

Sure, it frequently won't deliberately lie to you.

It often does not replace facts with a party line statement.

Wikipedia is far more trustworthy.

Strongly disagree. Wikipedo editors are allegedly "humans making an impartial judgement call."

Grokipedia is just an algorithm.

Humans without ethics are worse than a badly designed algorithm.

You've now made the claim that wikipedia editors are without ethics.

I see you also included all evidence to back up this baseless claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com