20 votes

Elon Musk plans to take on Wikipedia with 'Grokipedia'

14 comments

  1. Gaywallet
    Link
    Cool, AI powered pseudo-scientific racism backed by unlimited money what could go wrong?

    Cool, AI powered pseudo-scientific racism backed by unlimited money

    what could go wrong?

    41 votes
  2. [4]
    skybrian
    Link
    I'd bet against it succeeding. Many people have tried to build Wikipedia clones, but none have gotten traction so far.

    I'd bet against it succeeding. Many people have tried to build Wikipedia clones, but none have gotten traction so far.

    10 votes
    1. [3]
      ali
      Link Parent
      But what if you want a Wikipedia that is controlled by one billionaire asshole instead of a community of people striving to share knowledge?

      But what if you want a Wikipedia that is controlled by one billionaire asshole instead of a community of people striving to share knowledge?

      20 votes
      1. Lexinonymous
        Link Parent
        The problem is that when you create parallel products, being "Foo but conservative" isn't a selling point by itself except to preach to the choir. The only way to kill Wikipedia is to subvert it...

        The problem is that when you create parallel products, being "Foo but conservative" isn't a selling point by itself except to preach to the choir.

        The only way to kill Wikipedia is to subvert it directly, then coast on the branding. Elon should know this, having done this exact strategy with Twitter.

        The fact that he's doing this instead tells me he's out of ideas and is trying to grab headlines by shouting "AI" at the top of his lungs.

      2. timo
        Link Parent
        What many people want is a Wikipedia that produces facts that align with their feelings.

        What many people want is a Wikipedia that produces facts that align with their feelings.

  3. [6]
    DFGdanger
    Link
    What's wrong with good old conservapedia? Oh right, it doesn't have AI. Always best to have inaccuracies put in to your knowledge base at random, on purpose.

    What's wrong with good old conservapedia?

    Oh right, it doesn't have AI. Always best to have inaccuracies put in to your knowledge base at random, on purpose.

    9 votes
    1. [5]
      Ganymede
      Link Parent
      Oh wow it's worse than I thought. https://www.conservapedia.com/Earth

      Oh wow it's worse than I thought.

      https://www.conservapedia.com/Earth

      Some Biblical scholars have calculated that the earth is around 6000 years old, using the genealogical information provided in Genesis. Some biblically illiterate scientists, however, disagree with this method of calculation, falsely predicting it to be 4.5 billion years old.

      8 votes
      1. Nodja
        Link Parent
        The most worrying part is that I still can't tell if this is real or satire.

        The most worrying part is that I still can't tell if this is real or satire.

        6 votes
      2. babypuncher
        Link Parent
        It would be funny if the people who believe this nonsense didn't have so much power.

        It would be funny if the people who believe this nonsense didn't have so much power.

        4 votes
      3. sparkle
        Link Parent
        I like that the "four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" as evidence for a flat earth is dismissed by "being a figure of speech", yet the same logic cannot be applied to the...

        I like that the "four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" as evidence for a flat earth is dismissed by "being a figure of speech", yet the same logic cannot be applied to the creation story in Genesis, that each "day" is a figure of speech.

        Cherry picking season is over, go home Conservapedia.

        2 votes
      4. CannibalisticApple
        Link Parent
        My bigger takeaway is relief that "Conservapedia" is an actual website and not some derogatory name for Wikipedia. I was worried for a second that Wikipedia had some scandals and shifting...

        My bigger takeaway is relief that "Conservapedia" is an actual website and not some derogatory name for Wikipedia. I was worried for a second that Wikipedia had some scandals and shifting ideologies/political slants I wasn't aware of. (Which, it almost certainly does, but the problems would be way worse than I thought if it got casually called that.)

  4. DefiantEmbassy
    Link
    The depressing thing is that this won't stop them from harassing and trying to destroy Wikipedia.

    The depressing thing is that this won't stop them from harassing and trying to destroy Wikipedia.

    7 votes
  5. [2]
    Throskie
    Link
    What a dork.

    What a dork.

    1 vote
    1. FishFingus
      Link Parent
      Yes, but also an evil man and an enemy of humanity.

      Yes, but also an evil man and an enemy of humanity.

      1 vote