>This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view, but it falls short due to systemic bias caused by the narrow demographics of its editing community. This bias results in underrepresentation of Global South perspectives, limited access individuals, and women, among others.
Wikipedia admits it's systemic bias. You cant admit there's a problem of bias for years and do nothing about it. It's going to spawn alternatives that attempt to fix the bias.
Yesterday I showed Acupuncture's article on Grokipedia was significantly superior, shockingly better than wikipedia.
I can show an example of where Grokipedia is worse:
Wikipedia is superior. Grokipedia's fail in my mind comes with the wording of: "Militants engaged in cold-blooded killing of entire households"
Which while factually correct, it's the wrong way to say it for neutrality. But it's not like Grokipedia was ever pushing some sort of "unreality" on the subject.
> his bias results in underrepresentation of Global South perspectives, limited access individuals, and women, among others.
And grok is addressing this... how, precisely?
I looked up your cite, this is the twitter thingy:
> GROKIPEDIA IS ALREADY MORE ACCURATE THAN WIKIPEDIA AND IT SHOWS
> Grokipedia just proved why it is rewriting how knowledge works online. Look at how it covers acupuncture compared to Wikipedia.
> Grokipedia explains the practice as an ancient Chinese medical system over two thousand years old, describing how it works, what practitioners believe, and what science says about its results.
> Wikipedia opens by calling it pseudoscience and quackery before even defining it.
> One informs you, the other attacks.
> Grokipedia delivers balanced facts while Wikipedia delivers bias.
Acupuncture related techniques do (I assume) go back 2000 years. They're also pseudoscience with no real evidence behind them. Both things can be true.
>This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view, but it falls short due to systemic bias caused by the narrow demographics of its editing community. This bias results in underrepresentation of Global South perspectives, limited access individuals, and women, among others.
Wikipedia admits it's systemic bias. You cant admit there's a problem of bias for years and do nothing about it. It's going to spawn alternatives that attempt to fix the bias.
Yesterday I showed Acupuncture's article on Grokipedia was significantly superior, shockingly better than wikipedia.
I can show an example of where Grokipedia is worse:
https://grokipedia.com/page/Kfar_Aza_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Aza_massacre
Wikipedia is superior. Grokipedia's fail in my mind comes with the wording of: "Militants engaged in cold-blooded killing of entire households"
Which while factually correct, it's the wrong way to say it for neutrality. But it's not like Grokipedia was ever pushing some sort of "unreality" on the subject.
https://www.trackingai.org/political-test
Grok is left-wing aligned. The allegation that Grok is somehow far-right and pushing false narratives doesnt stand up.