• webghost0101
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    My teachers used to say the same about Wikipedia.

    I did edit heavily, this is 3 outputs combined including a fact check this using Wikipedia

    It does not fail on such basic questions, “fact check this:” in a new instance works more reliably then asking a human.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the hate is a bit unwarranted, but be wary that it does sometimes fail anything

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      and they’re correct about not using wikipedia as a source, you use wikipedia as a summary and then verify the information in the ACTUAL sources it cites

      • webghost0101
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I can’t speak for others but when I research a topic it tends to require a collection of wikipedia articles rather then just a few.

        If i am really supposed to check every single source then i would not have time to even get to the main subject.

        And who verifies those sources? Where i come from having a degree is not proof of understanding. In the end were all ape brains trowing attempts at knowledge around.

        It is still rather interesting that i did take the same pattern you mentioned but with AI; I use AI as the summary overview of the concept. Then use wikipedia to verify that information.

        I must note my way of learning is not through any academic system. Within such system reliance on established concepts to explain phenomena has more value than individual understanding. So for school work you do indeed want a different source, but i want to learn stuff not chase positive judgement.