Wikipedia itself is not the issue. The issue is people believing everything they read (as long as it reinforces the opinions they already hold) without checking sources, and then not understanding what a credible source is.
Wikipedia can be beneficial as a place to source information on a subject. Just scroll down to the bottom to look at what the sources are for the article.
Then learn how to discern a credible source from an non-credible source. For instance, if it's a history article on WW2 for instance, a credible source could be non-fiction books, academic books written about it, or biographies of people who served in the war. A non-credible source would be something like "Jim Bob's Blog About Shit He Likes".
Truly, this is the problem:
Confirmation Bias
Not looking for sources
Not being able to differentiate a credible source from a non-credible one.
Doesn't matter of Musk does his version or not. Grok isn't infallible. I think we've all seen plenty of proof that Grok can get shit hugely wrong sometimes.
It's the fact that the majority of people just believe the parts that are convenient for them to believe, and toss out all the rest along with the lack of respect for credible sources. Musk and Grok aren't changing any of that.
Wikipedia itself is not the issue. The issue is people believing everything they read (as long as it reinforces the opinions they already hold) without checking sources, and then not understanding what a credible source is.
Wikipedia can be beneficial as a place to source information on a subject. Just scroll down to the bottom to look at what the sources are for the article.
Then learn how to discern a credible source from an non-credible source. For instance, if it's a history article on WW2 for instance, a credible source could be non-fiction books, academic books written about it, or biographies of people who served in the war. A non-credible source would be something like "Jim Bob's Blog About Shit He Likes".
Truly, this is the problem:
Doesn't matter of Musk does his version or not. Grok isn't infallible. I think we've all seen plenty of proof that Grok can get shit hugely wrong sometimes.
It's the fact that the majority of people just believe the parts that are convenient for them to believe, and toss out all the rest along with the lack of respect for credible sources. Musk and Grok aren't changing any of that.
🤷♀️