[ragnarok451]

One issue with this analogy is that paper encyclopedias really are precise when used correctly. Wikipedia is not.

I do think it can be used in research but not without careful checking. In my own work I've found it most useful as a search aid and for brainstorming.

^ this same comment 10 years ago

[mikkupikku]

Paper encyclopedias were neither precise nor accurate. You could count on them to give you ballpark figures most of the time, but certainly not precise answers. And that's assuming the set was new, but in reality most encyclopedias ever encountered by people in reality were several years old at least. I remember the encyclopedia set I had access to in the 90s was written before the USSR fell..

[mapontosevenths]

> I do think it can be used in research but not without careful checking.

This is really just restating what I already said in this thread, but you're right. That's because wikipedia isn't a primary source and was never, ever meant to be. You are SUPPOSED to go read it then click through to the primary sources and cite those.

Lots of people use it incorrectly and get bad results because they still haven't realized this... all these years later.

Same thing with treating stochastic LLM's like sources of truth and knowledge. Those folks are just doing it wrong.