Post #2913112
2026-02-11 09:46 UTC
@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.
Replies (1)
-
@johnbutler@typo.social 2026-02-11 10:21
@db@typo.social Start with the Scangraphic example. Wikipedia’s article is next to useless. And if you dig into the edit histories on numerous Wikipedia articles, a good portion of the edits are themselves done by “bots.” How is Grokipedia any different in that regard? How is Wikipedia “verified” or “vetted” these days, and was it truly ever?