[rahimnathwani]

  but again this seems to reflect societal biases (of those who speak English, are literate and have fluency with computers, and are "extremely online" ...)

I don't believe that Wikipedia editorial decisions represent a random sample of English speakers who have fluency with computers.

Again, read what Larry Sanger wrote, and pay attention to the examples.

[the_af]

I've read Sanger's article and in fact I acknowledge what he calls systemic bias, and also mentioned hidden cliques in my earlier comment, which are unfortunately a fact of human society. I think Wikipedia's consensus does represent the nonextremist consensus of English speaking, extremely online people; I'm fine with sidelining extremist beliefs.

I think other opinions of Sanger re: neutrality, public voting on articles, etc, are debatable to say the least (I don't believe people voting on articles means anything beyond what facebook likes mean, and so I wonder what Sanger is proposing here; true neutrality is impossible in any encyclopedia; presenting every viewpoint as equally valid is a fool's errand and fundamentally misguided).

But let's not make this debate longer: LLMs are fundamentally more obscure and opaque than Wikipedia is.

I disagree with Sanfer

[the_af]

> I disagree with Sanfer

Disregard that last sentence, my message was cut off, I couldn't finish it, and I don't even remember what I was trying to say :D