Pages about companies and contemporary politics make up a relatively small percentage of Wikipedia. And what&#x27;s the realistic alternative? These pages are always going to represent opinions. Traditional encyclopedias usually represent views closer to the establishment mainstream, but that&#x27;s just a function of who gets a job at Britannica versus who has the time to edit Wikipedia all day.Will Elonpedia be better in that respect? Its owner is not exactly known from having a healthy distance to internet culture wars.More importantly, even if all these pages disappear overnight, Wikipedia is still extremely valuable and beneficial.

I hadn&#x27;t heard about Grokpedia, but Conservapedia already exists, and seems to be what they want?Edit: yes, it&#x27;s mentioned in the article: &quot;Conservapedia was launched in 2006 and is widely regarded as a joke by anyone who tries to wade through its ridiculous articles.&quot;Edit: It seems that the supposedly liberal-based pedia remains far more popular then the explicitly conservative-biased pedia. But both are out there, so take your pick.

&gt; As much as I dislike wikipediaWhat specifically do you dislike about Wikipedia?

Yes, I am interested to see if Grokpedia can live up to the initial hype. As much as I dislike wikipedia it is a difficult thing to get right. In particular where lots of political and business interests (and others, etc) apply pressure to manicure pages. With everyone banning everyone they don&#x27;t like it may just turn into another boring partisan internet split.

they all were not part of hyped roadmap with XXB of investments and XXXB evaluation.Throwing tons of money can often make things happen.

scholarpedia is the best because it has almost zero biography pages&#x2F;knuckleheaded political slants. However, it seems to have just have stopped in its tracks c. 2008

This is old hat. There are many Wikipedia alternatives which are based on the idea that Wikipedia is not conservative&#x2F;hilarious&#x2F;libertarian enough:Let&#x27;s take a spin through what the various Wikis have written about Musk:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.conservapedia.com&#x2F;Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.conservapedia.com&#x2F;Elon_Musk</a><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.uncyclopedia.co&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.uncyclopedia.co&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk</a><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scholarpedia.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scholarpedia.org&#x2F;</a> - no Musk article<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;citizendium.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;citizendium.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Elon_Musk</a> - nothing here (yet)... and so on.Honorable Mention to Encyclopedia Dramatica which had some funny parody content.

I wonder if the timing of this announcement with regard to Musk&#x27;s announcement of Grokipedia is coincidental. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gizmodo.com&#x2F;elon-musks-wikipedia-competitor-is-going-to-be-a-disaster-2000665751" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gizmodo.com&#x2F;elon-musks-wikipedia-competitor-is-going...</a>

It depends. Often staff are a lot more even handed than volunteer editors because you have to be a bit weird and love moderating to do it voluntarily, but it&#x27;s pretty normal to do it as a job.StackOverflow has this problem (or had, before it died) - the mods were hugely invested in closing questions for basically any reason, so normal users ended up hating it and the company couldn&#x27;t make any changes to improve things because whenever they tried the mods revolted.It&#x27;s not as much of an issue with Wikipedia because most Wikipedia users aren&#x27;t actually editing articles and running into any moderation issues.

I&#x27;m not sure if moving from the biases of wikipedia editors to the biases of wikipedia staff would necessarily be a positive

Then take a really sensitive topic and check it:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gaza_genocide" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gaza_genocide</a>Ask yourself how neutral this is, and it of course isn&#x27;t neutral at all by Wikipedia standards (obviously both parties don&#x27;t agree, and one party&#x27;s viewpoint is not represented ... at all, which is normally a hard no on wikipedia) and then look at the discussion page, to see it become 100x worse, and to see openly racist viewpoints that I&#x27;m surprised they allow even on discussion pages.What&#x27;s especially troublesome is that one side (the one who&#x27;s viewpoint is the only represented on the page) is totally opposed to even discussing the existence of the other side.

The best thing wikimedia can do is make sure Wikipedia is unbiased as possible in sensitive topics - not just really on random online editors to notice things but to actually actively check for biases and omissions.

If CISA is reaching out to Facebook and Twitter to censor content, you can bet there is heavy government involvement in Wikipedia as well. Haven&#x27;t seen that mentioned in the comments yet. And hopefully that is not a controversial statement.

You might not like what I write, but that is very much the situation on the ground.

Wikipedia is very much in maintenance mode now. The vast majority of editors are interested in tweaking things like external links and categories. Some people (many!) are overly invested in the admin&#x27;s noticeboard.If you are a content creator, good luck. You aren&#x27;t really valued.

Making sure AI serves people and knowledge stays human