undefined | Better HN

0 pointstablespoon3y ago0 comments

>> All signs point to this strengthening the value of curation and authenticated sources.

> This is what they said about Wikipedia viz. Britannica...

And they were right. If "they" were wrong about anything, it was the assumption that the masses would prioritize quality over cost, but it turns out that cheap wins every time. When it comes to information, it's like most people's taste buds don't work, so they'll pick free crap over nutritious food.

Edit: Another thought came to mind: stuff like ChatGPT may contribute to killing off Wikipedia: Wikipedia is currently the cheapest and fastest way to find information (that's often crap). However, if something like ChatGPT can get information to people faster (even if it's crappier, just as long as it's minimally acceptable), Wikipedia will become much less popular and could end up just like Britannica.

0 comments

idiotsecant3y ago

Were they right, though? I am pretty sure I've seen research that compared the scope and accuracy of both and wikipedia was miles ahead.

krona3y ago

In most areas you're correct, but the political slant/bias of Wikipedia is fairly blatant and is getting worse.

See for example: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110

pessimizer3y ago

The political slant is anything but blatant, because all of the complaints focus on Republican/Democrat wedge issues where both sides are conjuring alternate realities to sell to their bases like soap operas.

The real political slant is put on Wikipedia by governments and companies that are willing to consistently employ people to cultivate and maintain bias (and to provide the technical support to prevent them being easily caught.) They make sure certain things aren't mentioned in particular articles i.e. when they are added they delete them, and when those deletions are controversial, they take advantage of the pseudononymous voting system. They reinsert untruths (and in the worst cases can even commission references for them.) They pay attention to articles that are rarely visited by experts, or rarely visited at all, to make sure that when the article subject is in the news, the first facts that people find are friendly facts (which then shapes the news coverage, and an instant POV for lazy pundits.)

The public really has no chance against this; the only time that bad actors run into serious difficulties is when they encounter their own counterparts, working for their enemies.

Wikipedia's failure mode is the same as Reddit's, or any other forum that allows anonymous control over content or moderation. It's cheap for hugely resourced governments, companies, and individuals to take it over. The price of one tank would keep a thousand distortions on Wikipedia indefinitely.

dsabanin3y ago

What about political biases of those who publish traditional encyclopedias?

1 more reply

wongarsu3y ago

Though it is worth noting that they conclude

> The bias on a per word basis hardly differs between the sources because Wikipedia articles tend to be longer than Britannica articles.

jchanimal3y ago

If reality has a left-wing bias, then you still have to control for that confounding effect.

yellow_postit3y ago

Extending this — it seems to me there will be growing skillset need to identify quality/accuracy.

Under formed thought: The proverbial haystack just got a lot larger, the needle stayed the same size, what tools will needle hunters need to develop both to find the needles and to prove to others they are in fact needles.

narrator3y ago

The funny thing about ChatGPT is it will write code that uses non-existent confabulated APIs. You have to then call it out and it will say, oh sorry, of course you're right, here's another confabulated API, etc. The amount of convincing B.S it can spew is enormous!

Worse, when you stray into topics that are controversial it will often use informal fallacies. When you call it out, it will say, yes, you're right, I used an informal fallacy, here is what I should have said about controversial topic that's not the party line, and because you're so smart I won't b.s you.

krupan3y ago

I don’t know why more people don’t notice this? I feel like nearly everyone talking about ChatGPT hasn’t really pushed it very far or read what it says very closely. It’s actually pretty terrible

cookingrobot3y ago

Running with the analogy.. We’re used to using tools that help us find needles in the haystack. A rake, a bright light, a metal detector. Now someone sold us a machine that turns hay into needles. They’re not quite as good, but they’re definitely needles. So now as you say the haystack is going to get covered in these. Do we ban use of this machine? Build new machines to separate these synthetic needles from real ones? Or improve the machine so that the needles it makes are good enough for what we need?

ghaff3y ago

In fairness, Wikipedia isn't just about cheap. It also covers a lot more than Brittanica and covers more current events/information (somewhat to a fault as current events are what drives a lot of the bias). I suspect a lot of people would use Wikipedia even if Brittanica were free.

And while Wikipedia has its problems with current events perhaps especially and can be a bit hit or miss, overall it's pretty good these days and--so long as articles are well-sourced--can be a good jumping off point for more serious research.

moritonal3y ago

Most peoples taste buds don't work? We love sugar even when our bodies cant take anymore?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse