380

Elon Musk launches encyclopedia ‘fact-checked’ by AI and aligning with rightwing views (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Wolsu@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SCmSTR 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Tried to be popular on Twitter. Didn't work. Made the alt truth social. Didn't work. Bought Twitter. Worked.

Tried to shout fake shit on the news. Didn't work. Made Fox News. Worked. Bought all the other news stations anyway.

Tried to shout fake shit on the internet. Didn't work. Will make alt encyclopedia. May work. If it doesn't work, will try to buy or destroy Wikipedia.

Next up, trying to change internet history and targeting the Internet archive.

Next up, any primary sources of dissent.

[-] Carvex@lemmy.world 271 points 1 week ago

By definition, encyclopedias are neutral and non-biased, given they contain facts, not opinions. This is propaganda.

[-] Lenny@lemmy.zip 81 points 1 week ago

Grokaganda

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

While that is idealy true, the reality of maintaining an ecyclopedia is not always so black and white.

For example, Wikipedia needs to make decisions like whether to call Scientology a religion or a cult, or whether to call homeopathy medicin or pseudo-science. These are value judgements based on criticism to the subject matter and are not fully objective. But they are still important to allow people to get a full picture on a topic.

The alternative would be to relegate criticism on a topic to the criticism section, which runs the risks of giving certain ideas a false sense of legitimacy.

If I had to make a guess, part of the reason why Musk has such an issue with Wikipedia is because they actually have the policy to name criticism up front.

[-] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

We have a set of criteria for what constitutes a cult, and scientology is unequivocally a cult. If there's any debate, it's from the church trying to deny the fact.

Likewise, we also have the scientific method that disproves the health claims regularly made by homeopathy practicioners.

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 49 points 1 week ago

Whether to called homeopathy medicine or pseudoscience is absolutely NOT a value judgement

[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

scientology, which is widely believed to be a cult,

Homeopathy, which is objectively pseudo-science,

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

pseudo science is too kind. Unscientific is more accurate.

I don't know the difference between cults and religions. They both worship weird shit and bullshit stories.

[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

If it doesnt have to pay taxes its a religion i think

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 days ago

That's a very country centric definition

It would make a belief system a religion on one country and a cult in another

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Can't scientology be both?

Homeopathy doesn't follow the scientific method - its axiomatic. I don't think its hard to dismiss it as a non-science.

Wouldn't better examples of 'taking sides' be like moral panics etc?

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Homeopathy presents its approach as if it were science. Pseudoscience clearly fits

[-] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

No offense, but your examples of Wikipedia's "Grey area" absolutley pales in comparison to an entire grokipedia that presents absolutely no counter points whatsoever.

If the choice is between:

a self moderated encyclopedia that unquestionably will have some grey area edges cases where an active community will discuss the best way to interpret the facts.

a self-owned encyclopedia created for the sole purpose of hiding facts billionaires don't like.

Then the choice is very much black or white in deciding which is better to use.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm not even remotely saying you should use Grokipedia over Wikipedia. I kind of assumed that would be a given, considering the other things I said.

I'm merely pointing out that an encyclopedia isn't just stating dry facts, and that there is certain editorial decisions that need to be made when presenting information.

That does not mean I'm saying Wikipedia is bad and shouldn't be used.

Edit: typo

[-] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Thank you for the clarification. This phrasing of yours:

While that is idealy true, the reality of maintaining an ecyclopedia is not always so black and white.

Is almost identical in nature to every bad faith argument used in the last two decades to dismantle public infrastructure in America.

Namely, you say Wikipedia's goal of factual clarity is an ideal that doesn't exist, and then go on to amplify a small problem (factual disagreement) as the reason it's "not always so black and white."

While your point is about encyclopedias in general, that seems buried by your choice of how to phrase that point.

No offense intended by me pointing this out. As you did absolutely clarify at the end of your statement that people should still use Wikipedia.

It's just that the phrasing you used is almost identical to MAGA and how they talk about Wikipedia being woke. I can go on Twitter right now and find several bots talking about how Wikipedia isn't an ideal source of information using the same language and argument you just did.

I appreciate the clarity you provided on what kind of decisions the editors of Wikipedia have to make, but I feel there's likely a better way to phrase it that makes Wikipedia seem stronger rather than weaker because of it.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Yeah, and it's worth clarifying when we assign controversial labels to topics that we do so only insofar as reliable sources already consistently do so. Even if it's an objective statement like "convicted smuggler", that still needs to be balanced with how much that aspect of the subject's life is covered by reliable, independent sources compared to the others. This is pretty similar to how we would treat a benign, neutral statement: we wouldn't write "John Doe is a businessman, politician, and person whose favorite color is orange" absent comparatively lengthy coverage from multiple outlets about Doe's obsession with the color orange.

[-] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

Those are things fascists hate.

[-] DandomRude@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

In itself, yes, but not according to Musk's definition, which he is gradually spreading via this propaganda tool. Unfortunately, this is also very successful, considering how many people already reject science in favor of random and very obvious lies.

The vast wealth of information on the internet should have had an enlightening effect on humanity, but because of influential monsters like Musk, the opposite is unfortunately the case. How they do this can be easily seen here.

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 49 points 1 week ago

Reality-deprivation by Mecha-Hitler.

[-] Goldholz 39 points 1 week ago

So a consev-apedia 2.0? It will be such a feaver dream

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 week ago

I know it's still in fashion to believe we can recover and that the future can still be saved, but I'm pretty sure it's over for humans as a society.

[-] LordMayor@piefed.social 17 points 1 week ago

Think about how many times in human history a person in a particular place and time could look around and come to the same conclusion.

Shit waxes and shit wanes. So it goes.

Even this shit is a blip in the grand scheme of things.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago

We recently passed the first point of no return climate change milestone.

[-] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

It's unlikely humans will die out even in the most extreme climate change scenarios. We'll just be in a much deteriorated state at the poles.

[-] the_q@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

Yeah which is why I phrased it "humans as a society".

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Depends what you mean, seems very unlikely we will eliminate ourselves or human society generally entirely, even in like a worst case nuclear exchange there will be survivors.

Will the new society have pocket computers and air conditioning and a power grid? Fuck no. But I mean there will be humans and societies still

[-] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 8 points 1 week ago

You guys are 1 country. Don't get me wrong you're absolutely working on fucking the rest of us all over too. And if we do need to world war 3 your asses out of this mess you've made it's not good for anyone. But the world is hardly going to end

[-] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

One reason why my partner and I decided no kids.

[-] edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I don't think global society ever restores once large scale open warfare kicks off in a few years/decades. Not sure if it'll be all the nazis or climate death that kicks it off.

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@piefed.world 12 points 1 week ago

We've seen before how other systems don't beat Wikipedia. It's an idea that, while not perfect, is incredibly reliable. I'm sure Grok can make its own version. That doesn't make it useful or popular.

this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025

380 points (100.0% liked)

News

33008 readers

2785 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world