Post #2913113

2026-02-11 10:21 UTC

@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?

Replies (2)

@frankrolf@typo.social 2026-02-11 10:38

@johnbutler@typo.social @db@typo.social I am reading the article on Source Serif, which is a subject I’m intimately familiar with. While the Groki-article is much more in-depth, there’s just a lot of fluff, and stuff that would rightfully receive a [citation needed] on Wikipedia. I know some Wikipedia articles are sparse, but I’d rather read about the essence of a subject than marketing-like copy which just takes a lot of time and energy.

Open ##2913114
@db@typo.social 2026-02-11 11:12

@johnbutler@typo.social I would argue the Wikipedia page is more useful. It’s marked as a stub (could also benefit from a clearer “lacks citations” banner), but it has enough entry points to research this further. In contrast, the other website peppers its three references in the opening paragraph as if they support individual assertions, which they don’t appear to actually do. I am unfamiliar with the subject but if you asked me to review the paragraph, I’d say “Before ceasing typesetting operations in 2009” is an unsupported claim. That’s before getting into the aspect of ingesting sources indiscriminately.

Open ##2913116