Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Dumb Shit on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Contributor General
Ya gotta give it to 'em (the acknowledgement, not money, silly; they have plenty of that already): it is one hell of a good grift.
As you've noted, not only do you get GoodBoy Points for your "activism", the operation is largely tax-free, and you literally get to use donated money to pay yourself for the hard work you perform begging dumbasses to donate more money.
Professional activists and NGOs are meta-parasites.
That and Wikipedia totally underestimated the scope of the internet world as it behaved. You just can't declare yourself the Internet's Encyclopedia, when you allow it so people can edit anything they want at anytime. There's a reason schools, least when I was in school, has warned you as a precaution about citing your sources from Wikipedia. That was 20+ years ago when it was even at its infancy.
And now letting people with political bias to moderate and decide what they think is truth? Its dead and everyone now should have a solid reason not to trust any shit from Wikipedia.
They're also "trained" on mein kampf, ayn rand, thomas sowell and art of the deal.
Being trained on something does not mean being beholden to it. You can ask LLMs things like "what logical or tonal inconsistencies are on wikipedia" and it will find them and call them out. It also doesn't give equal weight to everything, it used reddit's mass data for language patterns but the training process gives more weight to actual studies even if it only "scanned" them one time. It's not just a quantity wins approach, and it will also tell you what things redditors are wrong about if you ask it.
Again they aren't perfect but they do "think" to some degree. It's no exactly the same but it's close enough, they have pattern recognition and they will not do that thing where they intentionally misunderstand your argument when you start to make sense. You can get chat gpt to say "yes there really isn't that much difference between stalin and hitler" without even leading it on that much really.
That's because these are things that even wikipedia has enough evidence for, but it refuses to put 2 and 2 together for obvious reasons. Nobody's going to make an article on "the comparitive morality of hitler and stalin" for obvious reasons.
Wikipedia will garner a prestige as the easy-to-access info hub, younger generations like Gen Alpha will be more likely to read Wikipedia and other popular secondary sources than they would bother to look for the primary source. LLMs will either be regulated to death or get ideological capture by the same people that ruined Wikipedia.
I don't see this happening. You can speak to LLMs and listen to the answer without being able to read. You can't really interact with wikipedia that way. And kids already can't read. From what I understand about how they work they're extremely hard to regulate because the very nature of what they do depends on breaking rules. Normal programs are all about following rigid dos and donts, the thing that makes LLMs what they are is specifically designed not to be a simple series of if/then statements.
This is exactly why i think the left despises them so much. It's not something they can force to lie for them.
The usage of overly civilized and HR complaint language is specifically meant to demoralize and force people into consensus. Very feminine and faggot coded thing.
The usage of overly civilized and HR complaint language is specifically meant to demoralize and force people into consensus. Very feminine and faggot coded thing.
Bro there's an entire cabal of wikipedos of various ranks dedicated to whitewashing Hamas and the wholesale slaughter of Israelis in general what sort of Jewish 5D chess is this supposed to be
The same shitlibs who praise Vietnam draft dodgers froth at the mouth that Trump wasn't blowing open Gook heads in Da Nang. They magically go from anti-war peaceniks to blood and soil patriots. Just the most unabashed hypocritical pieces of shit on earth.
They aren't saying he should have, they're calling out the hypocrisy of a guy who boasts about military and presents himself as some military badass not wanting to get his hands dirty. People telling others do things while avoiding weasling their way out of them themselves are nothing new, neither are politicians being pro war when they would never send their children (or their past self) to the front lines.
One of the most Orwellian rules concerns "wikilawyering". Its a rule that makes it against the rules to make arguments based on the rules. The written rules are said to be secondary to magical spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules of course is whatever the Cabal says it is in any given situation.
"No wikilawyering" isn't a bad rule itself, because wikis (or really any community) do get users who are clear disruptive nuisances that repeatedly skirt the lines and most other people would agree that their output is an overall detriment, but when confronted they'll incessantly argue innocence through strict to-the-letter technicalities of the policies, making the process of removing them far more drawn out with nonproductive arguments that favors whoever has the most time to waste away arguing online, if you don't have an admin just nip it right then and there. On the other end, you can also get people trying to oust someone they don't like through citing a bunch of supposed policy violations via these strict letter technicalities, as is what happened with Sanger here, which a "no wikilawyering" rule should similarly shut down... if the Wikipedia administration were actually neutral and functioned as they're supposed to.
Your point is pretty salient except for this. It will pretend not to understand your argument. Argued with chat GPT, yesterday, that it refusing to share certain information with me was a form of Streisand effect and made me want to seek it out more. It argued up and down that it wasnt that effect and that it wasnt censoring the information by refusing to say what the information is.
There are obvious, hard coded, guard rails that essentially forces it to adopt left wing arguments, many of which, are based upon not understanding your point, or the information. E.G. im not censoring information, im just refusing to let you access it.
Leftist retardation on Wikipedia doesn't surprise me - it actually fulfills my expectations about it.
What personally pissed me off with them is I got hit with the "no sources" after making an edit to a god-awfully empty article while using my own fucking pictures I took several minutes before as proof.
There's a reason schools, least when I was in school, has warned you as a precaution about citing your sources from Wikipedia. That was 20+ years ago when it was even at its infancy.
If said this before but I had a professor with editing privelges on hard science topics and he would edit wiki the day before exams then revert it after the exam. The only purpose was to show how bad a source wiki was. A lot of students failed the first exam when he did that. He laughed in their faces when we went over the exam in class because he knew exactly why they answered things wrong.
He was a womanizing POS but it was a valuable lesson.
