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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Cool, AI powered pseudo-scientific racism backed by unlimited money
what could go wrong?
I'd bet against it succeeding. Many people have tried to build Wikipedia clones, but none have gotten traction so far.
But what if you want a Wikipedia that is controlled by one billionaire asshole instead of a community of people striving to share knowledge?
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.
What many people want is a Wikipedia that produces facts that align with their feelings.
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.
Oh wow it's worse than I thought.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Earth
The most worrying part is that I still can't tell if this is real or satire.
It would be funny if the people who believe this nonsense didn't have so much power.
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.
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.)
The depressing thing is that this won't stop them from harassing and trying to destroy Wikipedia.
What a dork.
Yes, but also an evil man and an enemy of humanity.