this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1881 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6864 readers
1983 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This, but for Wikipedia.
Edit: Ironically, the down votes are really driving home the point in the OP. When you aren't an expert in a subject, you're incapable of recognizing the flaws in someone's discussion, whether it's an LLM or Wikipedia. Just like the GPT bros defending the LLM's inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them, we've got Wiki bros defending Wikipedia's inaccuracies because they lack the knowledge to recognize them. At the end of the day, neither one is a reliable source for information.
Do not bring Wikipedia into this argument.
Wikipedia is the library of Alexandria and the amount of effort people put into keeping Wikipedia pages as accurate as possible should make every LLM supporter be ashamed with how inaccurate their models are if they use Wikipedia as training data
With all due respect, Wikipedia's accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.
It is likely that articles on past social events or individuals will have some bias, as is the case with most articles on those matters.
But, almost all articles on aspects of science are thoroughly peer reviewed and cited with sources. This alone makes Wikipedia invaluable as a source of knowledge.