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
that’s hilarious because wikipedia leans nowhere near left
Reality has a well known liberal bias
Ah yes, the reality of the genocide in Gaza has a liberal bias. That sounds accurate…
I do wonder sometimes if the better soundbite is “bullshit has a conservative bias”
According to liberals.
true,they lean neutral.
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.
it lists facts based on sources that might be biased.
the guy is right in that quite a bunch of sources lean center-right.
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.
No, that was you making the claim that Wikipedia is pure unbiased fact and then putting the burden of responsibility on me to disprove it. But I know you don’t actually know what “arguing in good faith” means, it’s just a phrase you parrot after seeing it used on Reddit as magic incantation to win arguments.
If you don’t have evidence for it, why did you claim it? Just use what ever proof you based your original assertion on, assuming you had any.
Wow, real good faith there, telling me what I’m going to do ahead of time. Sounds like you have nothing and you know it.
I literally already gave you an example, but you intended it. Seems like you saying that I would “immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias” was just you projecting your own behaviour on to me.
So it only lists facts, it doesn’t have a single biased article, but also its constantly changing… Hmmm. So apparently it doesn’t just state facts, it even changes what the facts are! Definitely nothing religious about that…
Orrrr a bias would have been introduced by someone who didn’t like the lack of bias.
I’d like you to explain how you determined that the overwhelming white, western, male, neoliberal perspective that dominates Wikipedia represents the One True unbiased perspective on reality. I’d like you to explain how you determined that sources like Radio Free Asia and the NYT, which Wikipedia treats as authoritative, are inherently always factual and unbiased despite having frequently lied in the past.
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”