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]

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!

Guess what? They do. They do in English class. They do in Science class. They do in Social Studies. Your last sentence is the only accurate thing: People will always do things 'their' way. I'm 53 and still find shortcuts that work for me.

 

[Old Soldier]

Guess what? They do. They do in English class. They do in Science class. They do in Social Studies. Your last sentence is the only accurate thing: People will always do things 'their' way. I'm 53 and still find shortcuts that work for me.

I know they do. I used to teach it on a number of different courses. It is absolutely amazing how many know-alls yawn their way through it then make a complete c***-up of the simple exercise at the end. I did not learn my computing at school or college , but on a small desktop starting with MS-DOS 3.0 and Wordstar with no spell- or grammar-checker and no Internet, using the same methods we used in the library when computers filled a room and we didn't have one in our pocket. I'm 75 and still use the same methods that always worked for me in the library but now use a computer - my way.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat. (old British saying) The hardest part is getting it right.

BTW - I am not afraid to try new methods - but only use them if they work better than my old ones.

 

[debwallsmith]

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

One might be semi-correct but at least it is editable.

 

[debwallsmith]

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!

Most university faculty I know have seen enough papers in their lifetimes to spot AI generated garbage. I went as far as to refuse to accept papers that reference sources like wikipedia. Furthermore, we send the papers to online plagiarism services that can also detect text written by someone/thing else. I once had a student submit a paper that had not plagiarized anything. They had correctly cited every single sentence in the 10 page paper. However, because it contained no original content, the paper received a grade of F.

 

[Old Soldier]

Most university faculty I know have seen enough papers in their lifetimes to spot AI generated garbage. I went as far as to refuse to accept papers that reference sources like wikipedia. Furthermore, we send the papers to online plagiarism services that can also detect text written by someone/thing else. I once had a student submit a paper that had not plagiarized anything. They had correctly cited every single sentence in the 10 page paper. However, because it contained no original content, the paper received a grade of F.

As I said - paraphrase it - put it in YOUR words - then it is 'original' content - you still need the references that Wiki pointed out to you.. The occassional bad spolling, like colour, is often automatic and is just the way you are thinking - which is what is lacking in many online histories.

My keyboard skills were also learned without help - hunce the bod spillng. (I do tend to proof-read before I send genuine ones though) Humor often helps.

 

[Old Soldier]

Most university faculty I know have seen enough papers in their lifetimes to spot AI generated garbage. I went as far as to refuse to accept papers that reference sources like wikipedia. Furthermore, we send the papers to online plagiarism services that can also detect text written by someone/thing else. I once had a student submit a paper that had not plagiarized anything. They had correctly cited every single sentence in the 10 page paper. However, because it contained no original content, the paper received a grade of F.

It's a good job this isn't a really Higher Education site. Some of the comments and statements are so much more fun to read.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I went as far as to refuse to accept papers that reference sources like wikipedia.

I was told Encyclopedia Britannica wasn't an acceptable source to cite in college either.

 

[Stryker65]

I usually just head down to the References and pull out the Original Sources, and use those. So I'm "citing Wikipedia" but not really.

 

[Stryker65]

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

No, I'd say for almost anything. See this thread I made a few weeks ago, regarding a Confederate lieutenant colonel a random user invented, and stuck in almost everything.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

No, I'd say for almost anything. See this thread I made a few weeks ago, regarding a Confederate lieutenant colonel a random user invented, and stuck in almost everything.

Open source encyclopedias are always going to suffer from the malicious and the delusional, whether written directly by humans or by AI programmed by humans.

Actually, that probably describes the entire internet.

 

[Old Soldier]

Open source encyclopedias are always going to suffer from the malicious and the delusional, whether written directly by humans or by AI programmed by humans.

Actually, that probably describes the entire internet.

Worrying, isn't it?

 

[huskerblitz]

I was told Encyclopedia Britannica wasn't an acceptable source to cite in college either.

No, encyclopedias have never been an acceptable source to cite. Encyclopedias are a collection and summary of other sources. They are tertiary sources, not even secondary sources.

 

[Old Soldier]

No, encyclopedias have never been an acceptable source to cite. Encyclopedias are a collection and summary of other sources. They are tertiary sources, not even secondary sources.

Yes, all true, but still - like Wiki - a start. But then you have to know the difference between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources and, the hardest part, how to find them. Not all primary sources are 100% correct. How would you class a letter from the battlefield, bearing in mind they rarely mention the gory details - or know what everyone else was doing?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Not all primary sources are 100% correct.

I think the biggest challenge someone has to learn when becoming a serious and competent researcher is learning how to reconcile the inevitable conflicting primary sources.

I think this is something many amateur/casual researchers and historians don't understand or know how to do, especially when researching family history. They can't understand that an honest and trustworthy source can still sometimes be mistaken, for a variety of reasons.

 

[huskerblitz]

Yes, all true, but still - like Wiki - a start. But then you have to know the difference between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources and, the hardest part, how to find them. Not all primary sources are 100% correct. How would you class a letter from the battlefield, bearing in mind they rarely mention the gory details - or know what everyone else was doing?

Yes, completely agree and something I said earlier. Great for summaries and for finding where the information came from.

And yes, not all primary sources are accurate. Which is why schools teach kids how to verify sources. Frankly, sometimes adults need to relearn that, me included sometimes.

 

[debwallsmith]

I usually just head down to the References and pull out the Original Sources, and use those. So I'm "citing Wikipedia" but not really.

I always told my students that Wikipedia is a great place to start if you know nothing about the subject. I also told them to find "THE" definitive source for the subject and mine the bibliography.

 

[debwallsmith]

I think the biggest challenge someone has to learn when becoming a serious and competent researcher is learning how to reconcile the inevitable conflicting primary sources.

I think this is something many amateur/casual researchers and historians don't understand or know how to do, especially when researching family history. They can't understand that an honest and trustworthy source can still sometimes be mistaken, for a variety of reasons.

Why reconcile? Accept that different people view situations differently and interpret them based on their knowledge and experiences. Accept that and use their accounts to establish what actually happened. I always wanted to create new exhibits for the museum at the Jeff Davis capture site. There are varying accounts of what happened including a very lengthy letter from Varina Davis. The new exhibits would present the various "versions" of the events and allow the museum visitor to decide what might really have happened.

 

[debwallsmith]

I was told Encyclopedia Britannica wasn't an acceptable source to cite in college either.

True but like wikipedia it's a good place to start if you know nothing on the subject.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Accept that different people view situations differently and interpret them based on their knowledge and experiences. Accept that and use their accounts to establish what actually happened.

Yes, that's what I meant by "reconcile."

The new exhibits would present the various "versions" of the events and allow the museum visitor to decide what might really have happened.

Offering various conflicting accounts takes up a lot of space, whether in an exhibit or a book. Sometimes accounts are so conflicting it's impossible to reconcile them and this is the best option.

A good historian is better equipped, through their knowledge and research, to evaluate the conflicting information than the average reader or museum visitor.

What happened is objective. Our understanding of what happened is subjective. The study of history is in part to be an asymptote, approaching absolutely correct understanding despite never being able to get there.

On the other hand, sharing different perspectives in terms of reactions and meaning is useful for the reasons you state. They are opinions.

To use the example event you mentioned: when, where, with whom, and by whom Jeff Davis was captured are objective. Whether he was wearing his wife's dress is objective. That the only thing belonging to her he was wearing was probably a shawl or cloak to keep warm leads to an interesting exploration of how myths get started. But whether Davis should have been allowed to escape, or shot instead of captured, or put on trial for treason after being captured: those are all subjective opinions than can usually be defended but not proven absolutely correct or incorrect.

 

[debwallsmith]

Yes, that's what I meant by "reconcile."



Offering various conflicting accounts takes up a lot of space, whether in an exhibit or a book. Sometimes accounts are so conflicting it's impossible to reconcile them and this is the best option.

A good historian is better equipped, through their knowledge and research, to evaluate the conflicting information than the average reader or museum visitor.

What happened is objective. Our understanding of what happened is subjective. The study of history is in part to be an asymptote, approaching absolutely correct understanding despite never being able to get there.

On the other hand, sharing different perspectives in terms of reactions and meaning is useful for the reasons you state. They are opinions.

To use the example event you mentioned: when, where, with whom, and by whom Jeff Davis was captured are objective. Whether he was wearing his wife's dress is objective. That the only thing belonging to her he was wearing was probably a shawl or cloak to keep warm leads to an interesting exploration of how myths get started. But whether Davis should have been allowed to escape, or shot instead of captured, or put on trial for treason after being captured: those are all subjective opinions than can usually be defended but not proven absolutely correct or incorrect.

Having designed exhibits for many Georgia historic sites where we were required to squeeze vast amounts of information into small spaces, I understand the differences between facts and opinion and how to present them clearly, objectively and unambiguously. I am confident that we could have done the Jeff Davis capture story justice in the allotted space. After all, we told the Trail of Tears story in 800 square feet. We managed to tell FDR's story in the context of Warm Springs including his legacy in about 1600 sq ft. We had a preliminary design for Jeff Davis but sadly never got funding.

I would argue that good historians aren't the only people equipped to evaluate conflicting information. My background isn't history, it's archaeology but that is irrelevant as I learned to put together pieces of information and tell stories based on research. I would suggest that reference librarians are even better equipped than historians to evaluate conflicting information but that's an opinion.