Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by weatherlite 332 days ago
> I'm worried about this. Companies like Wikipedia spent years trying to get things right,

Did they ? Lots of people, and some research verify this, think it has a major left leaning bias, so while usually not making up any facts editors still cherry pick whatever facts fit the narrative and leave all else aside.

2 comments

This is indeed a problem, but it's a different problem from just making shit up, which is an AI specialty. If you see something that's factually wrong on Wikipedia, it's usually pretty straightforward to get it fixed.
> This is indeed a problem, but it's a different problem from just making shit up, which is an AI specialty

It's a bigger problem than AI errors imo, there are so many Wikipedia articles that are heavily biased. A.I makes up silly nonsense maybe once in 200 queries, not 20% of the time. Also, people perhaps are more careful and skeptical with A.I results but take Wikipedia as a source of truth.

[citation needed]
"Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has been critical of Wikipedia since he was laid off as the only editorial employee and departed from the project in 2002.[28][29][30] He went on to found and work for competitors to Wikipedia, including Citizendium and Everipedia. Among other criticisms, Sanger has been vocal in his view that Wikipedia's articles present a left-wing and liberal or "establishment point of view"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

Exactly
To be fair, wikipedia generally tries to represent reality, which _also_ has a "left leaning bias", so maybe it's just you?
Reality has no biases, reality is just reality. A left leaning world view can be beneficial or can be deterimental depending on many factors, what makes you trust that a couple of Wikipedia editors with tons of editing power will be fair?
The article about it is Ideological Bias on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia