[thrance]

I fail to imagine how putting Wikipedia in the hands of an ideologically captured mega-billionaire will help the fight against bias. The owner of Grokipedia has shown times and times again that he has no regards for truth, and likes to advertise the many false things he believes in.

The technology behind it doesn't matter. Show me the incentives and I'll tell you the results: Wikipedia is decentralized, Grokipedia has a single owner.

[smitty1e]

To use your terminology, the perception that Wikipedia is "ideologically captured" stands.

[thrance]

How so? Because the community collectively refuses to host antivax or climate denialism propaganda? You can find these subjects on there btw, just with a mention correctly labelling them as falsehoods.

I'm yet to see conservatives bring up a single subject that Wikipedia allegedly silences out of ideology, that is not an obviously false conspiracy theory. In this, Wikipedia may appear to have a left-wing bias, but only because the modern right has gotten so divorced from reality that not relaying their propaganda feels like bias against them.

[smitty1e]

> "climate denialism propaganda"

Q.E.D.

[thrance]

Oh, you don't believe in climate change. Well, there we go. This explains that. Conservative propaganda has made you unable to distinguish truth from obvious lies, hence why you think Wikipedia is so biased. Have you considered your own biases?