Post #2693050
2026-02-11 09:35 UTC
I don’t know if it’s edit wars, something else, or some combination, but the quality of Wikipedia has been deteriorating for years, and Musk’s fork Grokipedia is now in the ascendant. Compare articles on: Scangraphic, Otto Hupp, Gerrit Noordzij, 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate, Ditran, Adobe Framemaker, kalmia latifolia. The one area where Wikipedia wins is illustrations (Grokipedia 0.2 currently has none.) I suspect Grokipedia 1.0 will have illustrations.
Replies (1)
-
@db@typo.social 2026-02-11 09:46
@johnbutler@typo.social I don’t contest some Wikipedia pages need more attention, but the two can’t be compared. What’s the point of prolix, unverified slop? The examples you point to are unbearably tedious in their fluffed-up version, IMO. I’d rather have less, but vetted, info.