Grokipedia vs Wikipedia?

[Bruce Vail]

I noticed this week that Grokipedia has recently produced an entry for a history of the Confederate 3rd North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Wikipedia has had such an entry for a long time.

There is a pretty big difference between the two entries -- some of it good and some of it bad.

Anybody else out there been able to compare similar Civil War entries? Any conclusions?

 

[huskerblitz]

I have not used it, but one is AI and the other can be human vetted, updated, and corrected. Go with the one that still has human oversight.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I agree with huskerblitz.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Got caught out once referring/relying on content in Grokipedia, but never again. I learned my lesson.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I have not used it, but one is AI and the other can be human vetted, updated, and corrected. Go with the one that still has human oversight.

Do you think it worthwhile to send in to Grokipedia some corrections of the most obvious errors?

I also wonder whether Grokipedia is fatally tainted by its association with Elon Musk?

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

One is semi-correct. The other is AI and semi-corrcct.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Grok is garbage, and the person behind Grok is garbage. End of discussion.

 

[Old Soldier]

There are other sources - but it takes time and effort - and common sense.

 

[huskerblitz]

Do you think it worthwhile to send in to Grokipedia some corrections of the most obvious errors?

I also wonder whether Grokipedia is fatally tainted by its association with Elon Musk?

I suppose you can. I've heard they do have a review team. The problem is that it can still pull bad information just because of how the AI gathers and compiles its information. It would be a constant battle.

I'm not a fan of Musk, but that's not my concern with Grokipedia. AI is unreliable. I've seen this in my own use of AI, it just can't always compile information and present the information correctly.

One is semi-correct. The other is AI and semi-corrcct.

You're living in the early 2000s. Wikipedia has a high accuracy rating today despite perceived unreliability. But like any source, Wikipedia should be used as an overview, not as a primary source. Follow the cited sources to find its sources. No longer is Wikipedia the wild west of editors. Today, there is a process you have to follow to change most articles and then that information is reviewed before being published. And yes, I have edited a few Wikipedia articles so that was the process I had to go through to add information.

 

[James Brenner]

I suppose you can. I've heard they do have a review team. The problem is that it can still pull bad information just because of how the AI gathers and compiles its information. It would be a constant battle.

I'm not a fan of Musk, but that's not my concern with Grokipedia. AI is unreliable. I've seen this in my own use of AI, it just can't always compile information and present the information correctly.


You're living in the early 2000s. Wikipedia has a high accuracy rating today despite perceived unreliability. But like any source, Wikipedia should be used as an overview, not as a primary source. Follow the cited sources to find its sources. No longer is Wikipedia the wild west of editors. Today, there is a process you have to follow to change most articles and then that information is reviewed before being published. And yes, I have edited a few Wikipedia articles so that was the process I had to go through to add information.

Agreed. Wikipedia is a first step, a gateway to further research. It's useful for providing that initial overview as you said, but it is certainly not the definitive word.

 

[huskerblitz]

Agreed. Wikipedia is a first step, a gateway to further research. It's useful for providing that initial overview as you said, but it is certainly not the definitive word.

Nope, and was never meant to be that. But it's extremely valuable and very accurate despite a good amount of the public's misconception.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Nope, and was never meant to be that. But it's extremely valuable and very accurate despite a good amount of the public's misconception.

I find Wikipedia very useful precisely for the reasons you describe. In my experience it provides a pretty accurate unbiased overview, which in turn forms a good starting point for other reading. It's especially good for me as an older person with a failing memory, because it allows me to quickly refresh my memory on key points.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I checked Grok for its entry on the 1st North Carolina Infantry Regiment and that provides an especially good example of AI shortcomings. The AI was unable to distinguish between two different units with very similar names and mashes the two up into a complete mess.

 

[Desert Kid]

Once upon a time in Middle School, 2003, a teacher once wisely told me "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given many of it's controversies over the last few years has solidified that the site's administrative staff consider it a Ministry of Truth above anything else. Look up any write-up of the "Yasuke controversy" for the game Assassins Creed. A hack writer ginned up the Yasuke character, which Wikipedia's staff tried making into a legitimate piece of history.

Don't use Wikipedia at all.

 

[Old Soldier]

Once upon a time in Middle School, 2003, a teacher once wisely told me "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given many of it's controversies over the last few years has solidified that the site's administrative staff consider it a Ministry of Truth above anything else. Look up any write-up of the "Yasuke controversy" for the game Assassins Creed. A hack writer ginned up the Yasuke character, which Wikipedia's staff tried making into a legitimate piece of history.

Don't use Wikipedia at all.

Perhaps. But it is a start. You try NOT to use Wiki as a 'sole source'. There are often much better sources, but occasionally, Wiki puts it just the way you like it.
BTW - 2003 is a long time ago.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Once upon a time in Middle School, 2003, a teacher once wisely told me "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given many of it's controversies over the last few years has solidified that the site's administrative staff consider it a Ministry of Truth above anything else. Look up any write-up of the "Yasuke controversy" for the game Assassins Creed. A hack writer ginned up the Yasuke character, which Wikipedia's staff tried making into a legitimate piece of history.

Don't use Wikipedia at all.

Yasuke controvery? You're kidding....

I doubt you could provide a single Wiki entry on a mainstream Civil War subject that isn't generally accurate and fair. Let's see an example of what you are talking aout!

 

[19thGeorgia]

Once upon a time in Middle School, 2003, a teacher once wisely told me "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

...for anything with controversy tied to it, it is most unreliable.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given many of it's controversies over the last few years has solidified that the site's administrative staff consider it a Ministry of Truth above anything else. Look up any write-up of the "Yasuke controversy" for the game Assassins Creed. A hack writer ginned up the Yasuke character, which Wikipedia's staff tried making into a legitimate piece of history.

Don't use Wikipedia at all.

What's your opinion of Conservapedia?

 

[Desert Kid]

What's your opinion of Conservapedia?

Don't like it.

 

[Old Soldier]

Even Google AI has a good go - AND provides references - BUT a lot of them are Wiki-related. A better way is to use Google search (or anyother search engine) using a fairly tight set of words. The AI bit can GUIDE you. but don't take it for granted. Yes, Wiki will be one of the hits, two even, but there will be others. Searches are not instant and certainly not instant success, but you use more than one reference, especially if the answer is controversial or vague. It is no different than looking through a set of books from the library. Patience is required.

Then you write it up using your references, paraphrase when you can and ensure you paste in PLAIN TEXT. Edit it and add in from other sources with the occasional link. English is preferred. I always add MY personal thoughts or experiences as italic text, as some will have sussed by now. They will also know I tend to spell the American way mainly because everyone else does. Regional accents and dialect never go down well, y'all.

THEN you put it online here - and duck! Sometimes you get a pat on the back and lots of brownie points - and sometimes you get negatives - especially when they have stopped laughing - and sometimes you get ... nothing. You will tell by the replies, if any. Some will ask for evidence (common-sense does not count - experience tells me). Being a real old soldier, I can give a soldier's point of view - yet some ********s still cry out for evidence, generally those who have never served, while the other ex-soldiers are nodding in agreement.

They should be teaching how to do this at school and college, but having tried that, the kids - and computer buffs - know it all and do it THEIR way. Sometimes it actually makes sense!