Wow, so Elon Musk has his own Wikipedia alternative? Interesting. But I'm not surprised that it already seems to have some questionable content on it...like referring to Hitler as "the Führer." That's not exactly an accurate description of him. And it's also concerning that the page on him goes on for 13,000 words before mentioning the Holocaust. It's important to accurately and objectively represent historical figures and events. Hopefully, this Wikipedia alternative will work on improving their content in the future.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
The man can literally afford to have a legal harem island, fund an entertainment company to create anything to amuse him, AND solve world hunger simultaneously...and he just fawns over Hitler.
His wealth is truly wasted.
He enjoys the smell of his own farts and believes other people will as well.
Most of the world's wealth is wasted under capitalism.
I mean the whole stupid Grokipedia thing is a shit show that will never take off, but Fuhrer is just "leader" in German. In it's used context for Hitler it straight up means dictator and (iirc) only came into full on use after the plebiscite giving him full dictatorial power after Hindenburg's death in 1934 (edit: He was already the Reich's Chancellor and merged in Hindenburg's powers with the vote to make himself full dictator / Fuhrer).
I'd welcome input from a German national - Is the word still used there?
Führer is not just „leader“, it is tainted and using it as a substitute for Hitler in a factual text is super weird, like casually calling Jesus in his Wikipedia article „our lord and savior“ now and then.
Thank you for this comparison. That's a fun one and one that's made a little more 'subtle' in the US if only because of how common that language is among the populace in regions and how pervasive protestantism is in advertising/messaging.
Jesus would've hated America. I think according to the bible he lost his shit twice - both because of capitalism.
There was one other time, when he cursed a tree because he didn't like its fruit, but yeah in general he disliked the nascent forms of capitalism and money people that he encountered.
Yeah I fully agree with this. I am thick in the middle of "Third Reich Trilogy" which gives an enormous amount of context to the word though.
If they changed it, it's further evidence of scummy behaviour, but on its own it's not a huge red flag for me with historical context.
Can't recommend the books enough if you're into that. The lad must have spent half his life in primary sources.
Is there another more 'generic' German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of 'he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer', and then no need to keep using "Fuhrer" anymore in the rest of the article.
Pretty sure its usually "Diktator" in that context.
Not German but moved to Germany. The word is still a normal word, it can be used, only in certain contexts not.
To me it is very very weird.
Especially in a comboword there is 0,0 issue: Reiseführer, Bergführer, etc. The no go zone seems very subtle to me, it's more about pronunciation and context, not the word itself. Especially the word "Führerschein" is super weird to me when used in regular conversations. I automatically hear translated "license to be the Führer", but it just means driver's license and nothing else and no one finds it weird.
Exactly this. If you use it as part of a compound word or as a verb it's totally fine. However "der Führer" (the Führer) is exclusively used to describe Hitler, and it usually has a negative or ironic vibe depending on who says it.
About the Führerschein... führen and fahren have the same etymological root... It is still used in "Führen eines Fahrzeugs" which simply means "driving a car" and that is where the term comes from.
Why would they use the honorary, German word Fuhrer in an English language wiki article though?
Exactly.
If you are describing hitler's role in WW2? Yes, he was The German Fuhrer.
I would say that, honestly, I prefer the second version as it is more accurate to what he was. But any time you change something you have to ask "what does it mean that we are changing things?"
And since musk is, at best, someone who wishes he was as cool as the losers on LUE back in the day? This is very much not being done with a journalistic style guide in mind.
We also use "Dalai Lama", for example. Changing it to "leader" would lose a lot in translation. There's a very long list of more problematic things with Musk and this ego project than this particular wording choice.
I agree with the second half but disagree on the first. We do use Dalai Lama because thats what he's known as across the world (at least fron my understanding) . We didn't refer to Angela Merkel as Furher of Germany when she lead it so it seems weird to include this in the introductory summary of Hitler especially considering it's an English article. I dont think you're losing anything in translation in this example by calling him the "leader of Germany" at that time. Down below, in the verbose write-up, seems like the more appropriate place to use it.
As a german, the word is very seldom used, and everybody cringes on use of it alone. We even use the english word guide instead for situations where it fits.
Not a german national, but I'm learning it at school, and they say that if you go to a german-speaking region, it's better to say "chef", because "führer" is still connected to that guy
You don‘t really call him just the Führer in academic works so anything that works like an encyclopedia shouldn‘t either. The title is charged with either mockery or admiration. It should have no place in this context, because it should at least try to be neutral if you ask me.
I'm in the thick of a 90 hour audiobook trilogy on the third Reich which is absolutely incredible (link) and Fuhrer is used liberally, partly to describe his ascent to absolute dictator as opposed to just Reich's Chancellor.
I'm not defending shitopedia for one second! I'm just not sure it's as outrageous as other shit that's taking up our limited attention span at the moment is all.
Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it's the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.
You can think of it kind of like "dear leader" in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.
Man calls unbiased site biased, releases biased site to replace unbiased site.
It's the only way to justify his stupidity and cover up his lack of genius.
Conservapedia already did this something like twenty years ago. It missed the entire purpose of the project, which was to invite a kaleidoscope of specialists and journalists to document the volume of known information categorically, primarily through citation to other online works.
Instead, you had a basket case of ultra-orthodox ideologues carving out a very niche set of contrary opinion posts that weren't well documented or continuously maintained.
Conservapedia isn't a right wing vanity project because of it's hot takes on Hitler, it's a vanity project because of the yawning gulfs in it's data set. Nobody engages with the site, because it is so heavily censored.
I get the sense Grokapedia will suffer the same fate. If a subject doesn't tickle Musk's interest, it'll either go undocumented or be a naked plagarization of some other online encyclopedia. And as soon as Musk loses interest entirely, support for the service will go the same way as so many private vanity projects.
Incidentally, Wikipedia's fate is also an open question. What happens when Jimmy Wales can't administer and fundraise for it anymore? How long until some hacks get their hooks in and corrupt it like so many other private media outlets?
That's exactly why it's freely licensed, because we can't even trust King Jimbo.
I mean, just having the ability to roll up your own Wiki is very handy.
I would appreciate a way to archive the citations, so that a link-break down the line doesn't cause the raw data to be lost. But that's a problem with copywrite and IP more than anything Wikipedia does natively.
I wonder how (or if) grokopedia defines "woke"?
Most of the people who complain about "the woke" arent able to define it.
Not sure if you heard but according to the CEO of Palantir in an interview he gave a few weeks ago, there is now "woke left" and "woke right."
Basically anybody on the right who wakes up and smells the bullshit in the narrative is "woke." Like if you believe in those "crazy conspiracy theories" that say Palantir is up to some evil villain shit, you're woke.

It's kind of hilarious that a word literally derived from "awoken" in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning is these people's prime insult.
So is antifa. Literally anti-fascist.
Creepy ass conservatives: Stay asleep so I can keep doing stuff to you while you're unaware.
According to Peter Thiel Greta Thunberg is the Anti-Christ because she believes in people coming together and pressuring the UN. Anything to avoid accountability with these people.
When they rail against "one world government" it just makes me think it's a good idea.
I mean they want a one government, they just want to be the ones in charge of that one government.
The entire argument is that it's somehow safer bc it's a private corporation/business, and not the government. Except it's a private monopoly protected and contracted by the fucking government!
The only way that argument could possibly make the slightest bit of sense would be in an imaginary world where there was legitimate competition between other corporations (but if that was the case corporations probably wouldn't exist) and the American people actually had some say in which private company got government contracts.
Instead, government officials (who are allegedly the reason we have to turn to private businesses bc we can't trust the government) are buying stock in private companies, and then handing government contracts to the fucking private companies where they own stock.
Palantir is a scumbag company that profits on selling the machinery of oppression to authoritarian governments and entities.
I don't believe Elon sees any of this honestly. In his eyes, this is what it is: racist and highly propogandized bullshit. This is because Elon is a racist, highly politically bias asshole.
I just watched a tech video that reviewed two North Korean smartphones. Its autocorrect assertively blocks out or autoreplaces anything deemed unfit by the government, along with absolute control of what can be done on it, and absolute fingerprinting of anything sent.
I was reminded of this for no reason.
It’s the holidays and he misses his dad…
he misses his sister mom too. She probably gives him special favors
Tbh, from a historical point of view, The Führer was used to describe Hitler. Now in Germany, it's basically only used to refer to him.
I'm not for deleting history, and I think the context is important. People needs to know why The Führer or "der Führer" is bad.
A context which I think would have helped in another example would be the N-word. If everyone was really taught the history around that word, I think/hope alot of people would think twice before using it today.
Or is that only me?
Mentioning Adolf Hitler's title (Führer) is fine (and the information about such title should be included in the wikipedia artcile about him) but why refer to him accross the article by such title?
That's a good point. But The Führer is not something positive, and I wouldnt think much about it.
I'm don't think this was an intentional way to make him sound better. I think we should be much more aware of fact checking what it says, than overusing a historical word to describe Hitler. That might just be an AI thing.

Remember when he did that Nazi salute, and we kept hearing it totally wasn't a Nazi salute, and the Trump administration kept saying that we were all just looking for imaginary things to be outraged over?
Then why is he having Grok rewrite Wiki and calling Hitler the Führer, Bart?
