I love Wikipedia. I agree all the good things people are saying about it here and all the people supporting Wikipedia.
That being said.
Wikipedia isn't the truth. I know this for a fact, because there are historical articles that I was there to witness that are not even close to being documented correctly by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia simply collates narratives that can be drawn from citable evidence. Still, their definition of citable evidence is about as workable as I can imagine.
If one doesn't like it, one is invited to get your side of the story published in a reputable source, and then cited. It outsources the process of fact-checking to the free press, such as it exists on the internet.
There is a clip from Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom that humorously illustrates[0].
I still think Wikipedia is better than we probably deserve and I'm glad we are training training AI on it. I also hope that they are trained on the edit discussions, because that is the AI that's going to really understand humanity.
That being said.
Wikipedia isn't the truth. I know this for a fact, because there are historical articles that I was there to witness that are not even close to being documented correctly by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia simply collates narratives that can be drawn from citable evidence. Still, their definition of citable evidence is about as workable as I can imagine.
If one doesn't like it, one is invited to get your side of the story published in a reputable source, and then cited. It outsources the process of fact-checking to the free press, such as it exists on the internet.
There is a clip from Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom that humorously illustrates[0].
[0] https://youtu.be/3wla-vK4Buw
I still think Wikipedia is better than we probably deserve and I'm glad we are training training AI on it. I also hope that they are trained on the edit discussions, because that is the AI that's going to really understand humanity.