Elon Musk's Anti-Woke Wikipedia Is Calling Hitler “The Führer”
theintercept.com
Grokipedia, the anti-woke Wikipedia alternative, aims to create a parallel version of the truth for the right wing.

In late October, Elon Musk released a Wikipedia alternative, with pages written by his AI chatbot Grok. Unlike its nearly quarter-century-old namesake, Musk said Grokipedia would strip out the “woke” from Wikipedia, which he previously described as an “extension of legacy media propaganda.” But while Musk’s Grokipedia, in his eyes, is propaganda-free, it seems to have a proclivity toward right-wing hagiography.

Take Grokipedia’s entry on Adolf Hitler. Until earlier this month, the entry read, “Adolf Hitler was the Austrian-born Führer of Germany from 1933 to 1945.” That phrase has been edited to “Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and dictator,” but Grok still refers to Hitler by his honorific one clause later, writing that Hitler served as “Führer und Reichskanzler from August 1934 until his suicide in 1945.” NBC News also pointed out that the page on Hitler goes on for some 13,000 words before the first mention of the Holocaust.

Archive: http://archive.today/aEcz0

    • Ernest@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      6 hours ago

      … idk, if Wikipedia is pissing off Deepak Chopra, I’m pretty sure that’s a good thing…

      edit: I think my downvote probably warrants a less flippant explanation. In the past decade, Wikipedia has started explicitly labeling pseudoscience and “alternative medicine” as such, as opposed to their original policy of being so “neutral” they would say things like “some people think this is bogus, but some people think not”. This has, understandably, pissed those people off, and I suppose in some sense they are right? But in this era of widespread and accelerated sanewashing, I think saying these (true!) things does matter, and the people getting pissed off are really just telling on themselves. I would invite you to read the Wikipedia articles on the quoted public figures for yourself, and verify that they really were slandered the way they describe.

      tangentially-related Hank Green video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zi0ogvPfCA

      • softwarist@programming.devEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        I should have specified: I don’t agree with every part of the article, but I shared it for this excerpt:

        The Wikimedia Foundation solicits donations from Wikipedia users every year, even though its expenses ($2 million to run hosting and servers) are vanishingly small compared to its profits. Wikimedia has increased its spending over 1000% since 2008 and sits on $97.6 million in assets as of 2016.

        • Ernest@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          58 minutes ago

          ah okay, I think sharing that entire article is kinda endorsing all the weird stuff in it, but thanks for specifying.

          I know those are large numbers, but like, Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the internet? “$97.6 million in assets” is peanuts to that (compare it to any other website in a similar range!). The fact that they don’t have that much operating costs is a good thing, right? It means they’re efficient, which is what people love to complain about with non-profits.

          Anyway, it’s not like they ask for much–I think the last fundraiser I saw they were asking for $2.75 a year, if you felt like they provided you that much value over the year. I certainly do, and I donate $10/year to them. If you don’t feel like Wikipedia is worth that cost to you that’s fair–but I think telling other people that they shouldn’t donate because it objectively(?) isn’t worth it is a strange thing to do.