Wikipedia is and has always been shit. It’s where institutions go to write down their propaganda so it sounds authoritative. In fact it’s the precursor to AI in that sense. It’s credentialism all the way down. If something is said somewhere by anyone, then it becomes a source. Unless that source is not approved of installed by the powers that let wikipedia gracefully host its websites.

If a page regarding a political or historical event isn’t under constant scrutiny, state actors and “trolls” will gradually alter it until it says nothing conclusive at all. Everything must be up in the air, everything must be “neutral” (when language itself is political…)

Also think about the incentives. You’re a government. You have people working full time to redact history. You CAN and you WILL threaten people who write the wrong version of history. This is not even hidden, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wikipedia–U.S._government_conflicts

They can see it happening, they can document it happening, and they can’t do shit to change it because they’re not a peer to peer project. Like the fediverse for that matter, it’s all vulnerable to the same exact “a guy in a suit rang your doorbell because the server is on your premises” tactic.

So in conclusion, believing that “wikipedia good” and “AI bad” is an incredibly naive way to understand the world. Read up on Wittgenstein and Sapir-Whorf and tell me how this isn’t literally their theories being implemented.

Google was born from In-Q-Tel. they’re literally the CIA. How uninformed is the average internet user to not see that the entire techbro oligopoly is simply the mask dropping? Sometimes I wonder what the koolaid tastes like. To believe that things just happen uncaused, that geopolitics is the weather, and that conspiracies are better explained by emergent behavior. That it’s never malice, just stupidity. That the top 1% is not on the far end of the bell curve, that they’re not merely pretending to be retarded. You know it’s like looking at the top chess players and concluding that it’s not skill (or anal beads), but dumb luck.

In other words the thing I’m mocking (and being downvoted for) is the notion that Google can be split up when it acts as an extension of the government. It’s like asking a person to cut off their own arm. Of course they won’t.