Never worry about commie crap like public citations getting in the way of misinformation rhetoric again! (Because the LLM trained on fuckin twitter made it up lmao)
On the flipside for an actually cool non-cucked integration of LLMs with wikipedia check out this post on the localllama where the person shares their project of using a local private llm to search through a local kiwix server instance of wikipedia. https://piefed.social/post/1333130
They lean centre right
It just lists facts. You go on there and try putting on a political opinion that isn’t actually facts based you’ll be shut down within seconds.
I’ve often said that liberals treat Wikipedia as Holy Scripture, and your comment is exactly that: an assertion that a particular work provides direct access to revelatory Truth. That anything it states is inherently “fact”.
Every holy book is “just a list of facts” to its believers.
Well it says the earth is a sphere so I guess I get where you’re coming from. The problem is you haven’t actually provided any evidence to your claim that it’s some kind of evil liberal bias.
I’ll bet Grokipedia states the earth is a sphere too. Does it also “just list facts”
I also don’t see you providing any evidence for your claim that Wikipedia “just lists facts”.
So you’re doing the classic thing of putting the burden of responsibility for your ridiculous claim on to somebody else to disprove. A classic sign of somebody not arguing in good faith.
How can I prove that Wikipedia only lists facts since any evidence that I present, you will immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias.
I want you to link to any article, on any subject matter on Wikipedia (in English so we can actually read it, I know that trick) that proves your claim of bias. I genuinely don’t believe you will be able to because if you could provide this evidence, you would have linked to it in your original comment.
Your holy scripture arguement doesn’t work because Wikipedia isn’t a fixed source of stated reality, it’s a constantly changing constantly updated website. We know the Bible isn’t objective reality because we’ve had it for a very long time and have been able to test it against known historical accounts, and they don’t match up. Wikipedia on the other hand is updated millions of times a day. Even if an article had some bias, by the end of the first day that bias would have been corrected by someone who didn’t like the bias. But you’re stating that there is a deep rooted institutional bias. I’d like you to indicate it please.
The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself. If you have a concrete example of it siting something demonstrably wrong, bring it up, we can examine it here and if you are right, even fix it.
So literally just the Holy Scripture argument: “the Bible is true, and the evidence is the Bible”
I can bring up a lot of wrongs with the bible. I would like you to do the same with Wikipedia. Bring an example.
Just to be clear, since it seems it needs to be spelled out to you, I’m not saying Wikipedia is infallible, quite the opposite, it’s written by people. I’m saying there are mechanisms and culture to correct the wrongs, which means it’s better than probably any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.
So again, if you have examples, bring them up. Until then, don’t do the regular accusatory confessions you all do, it’s very boring and predictable.
You realise that to say that Wikipedia is completely factual, you also have to hold that all of the sources that Wikipedia uses are completely factual. You really going to try that? Because Wikipedia happily uses right wing pundits and propaganda outlets as authoritative sources.
Actually, you undeniably did: you said it “just lists facts”. You said that “Wikipedia itself is evidence that Wikipedia is factual”. You literally just said that “it’s better than any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.”
This is how someone talks about religious scripture.
Go back to Reddit you wannabe anime villain loser. Jesus Christ, you zealots are incapable of not talking like the most bad faith smug man children alive.
But here’s an example for your bad faith ass: Wikipedia states Israel has universal suffrage. Now let’s here your apologetic for why your holy book is correct even though it contradicts reality.___
I was going to chime in on this thread, but then I saw who it was that you’re arguing with.
I would save my breath if I were you. Not worth the time.
it lists facts based on sources that might be biased.
the guy is right in that quite a bunch of sources lean center-right.