Wikipedia Sucks!

Have to admit to using AI bots for research now after checking sources it gives you. Most of the major AI sites use Wikipedia style output with sources in the text. They are getting better every month and also now using post-initial-generation AI and other programming to combat what would otherwise be hallucinations or biases from training data. For example, retrieving and reading webpages, safety checks after generation etc.

They often give really good info that I had no idea about.

An example of their improvement... only a month ago AI bots were *terrible* at finding quotes for example. But this month not such an issue. Now with their post-initial-generation technology, they can actually verify a quote is real and won't give you fake quotes. That used to be the biggest gripe of mine with these bots for a long time, they used to outright fabricate quotes constantly.

Looking at the monthly userbase of each, I think it's safe to say these chatbots have proven a long-term replacement as Wikipedia continues it's slow suicide.

journo wrote: ↑

Thu May 15, 2025 4:37 pm

Have to admit to using AI bots for research now after checking sources it gives you. Most of the major AI sites use Wikipedia style output with sources in the text. They are getting better every month and also now using post-initial-generation AI and other programming to combat what would otherwise be hallucinations or biases from training data. For example, retrieving and reading webpages, safety checks after generation etc.

They often give really good info that I had no idea about.

An example of their improvement... only a month ago AI bots were *terrible* at finding quotes for example. But this month not such an issue. Now with their post-initial-generation technology, they can actually verify a quote is real and won't give you fake quotes. That used to be the biggest gripe of mine with these bots for a long time, they used to outright fabricate quotes constantly.

Looking at the monthly userbase of each, I think it's safe to say these chatbots have proven a long-term deathknell to Wikipedia, and as replacements.

Just took a look at Botipedia, although it is not as comprehensive as expected, especially regarding the recent events in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and the absence of user account registration and complimentary human editing, it sure sounds like a very promising project alongside a few others which could replace Wikipedia one day.

Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑

Thu May 15, 2025 4:48 pm

Just took a look at Botipedia, although it is not as comprehensive as expected, especially regarding the recent events in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and the absence of user account registration and complimentary human editing, it sure sounds like a very promising project alongside a few others which could replace Wikipedia one day.

People use Wikipedia for quick information on topics to avoid manual research. That's also what the AI chatbots offer, with sources included. So why would they skip ChatGPT/Gemini directly and use what some random dude decided was best to include from any of those? They can customize on their own using the apps. Additionally, an increasing amount of Google searches are straight up serving Gemini instead of actual search results in the top 70% of your screen.

Anything that makes the WMF nitwits sweat a little is always good. And if the threat is from AIs that scraped their databases and failed to link back to them, let the teeth-grinding begin.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Fri May 16, 2025 12:51 am

Anything that makes the WMF nitwits sweat a little is always good. And if the threat is from AIs that scraped their databases and failed to link back to them, let the teeth-grinding begin.

HTD will become possible in the next few years or even months if the proper Wikipedia alternatives get on their feet together to become serious projects. Botipedia is about to make their move soon.

https://x.com/botipedia/status/1923475223531356467