this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
815 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

77096 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
815
Elon Musk Had Grok Rewrite Wikipedia. It Calls Hitler “The Führer.” (theintercept.com)
submitted 1 week ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ernest314@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] softwarist@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Operating expenses don't necessarily equate to total expenditure. The article also mentions that fifteen executives took home a six-figure salary in 2015; that doesn't strike me as particularly efficient.

Notwithstanding, what I originally said was not prescriptive. People are free to spend their money as they see fit. Even I have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation in the past and still believe that they provide invaluable resources for the common good.

Where I take issue is the fact that the messaging in their campaigns often gives the impression that the organization is scraping by on user donations, whereas in reality they're sitting on a pile of assets that would ostensibly be in the 99.9ᵗʰ percentile of household net worth in the US.