The dangerous and disturbing combination of Wikipedia and AI

Most of the time, you don't want to be a Debbie Downer on the current trends. The pro-freedom side of the political spectrum is currently on a winning streak with President Trump at the helm, and it's becoming more than amusing to say, “Yes, we voted for this.” However, you also must be clear-eyed about emerging threats on the horizon, and thus, we need to consider the serious issue of the dangerous combination of the incredibly biased Wikipedia and A.I.

It only makes sense to cast a wary eye toward A.I. systems and Wikipedia, and they're teaming up to compound the problem. This may not matter with most subjects, given that there is some transparency with the latter, but when taken in combination with the always murky A.I. processes and controversial subjects, we have a recipe for disaster. A recent PragerU video gives a short overview of the dangers involved:

It's vitally important to ask the questions: Can you trust Wikipedia? Can you trust the A.I. systems that use Wikipedia as a source? Because this is the source cited in most Google search results and regurgitated by A.I. systems.

As related in the video, 2016 was a watershed moment for the left. When Donald Trump unexpectedly trounced Hillary Clinton in what was supposed to be her coronation, the left became determined to control the internet, or they would lose again. Thus, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) — Wikipedia's parent organization, under the direction of executive director Katherine Maher — implemented the Wikimedia Movement Strategy.

Anti-liberty leftists made it their mission to remake Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a social justice platform. Internal documents that are now public detail a shift toward what the WMF termed “knowledge equity”:

If the name Katherine Maher sounds uncomfortably familiar, it's because she gave a TED Talk entitled “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs.”

She actually stated,

In our normal lives, these contentious conversations tend to erupt over a disagreement about what the truth actually is. But the people who write these articles, they're not focused on the truth. They're focused on something else, which is the best of what we can know right now.
And after seven years of working with these brilliant folks, I've come to believe that they are onto something. That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start.
In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that's getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.

She went on to say,

I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth.

It should be disturbing enough that they consider truth “a distraction,” getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done. And that they are prioritizing the “social movement” of “knowledge equity.” But now it’s only going to go downhill with the A.I. system relying on the “different truths” and “collective decision-making on important issues.”

Wikipedia is an excellent place to find out what the elites who rule us want us to believe.

Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is false, sometimes it is misleading—most often it ignores critical information that opposes their point of view.

They believe all the “experts” are correct on everything—and everyone else is a moron.

Best of all—they get to pick the “experts” they like.

It is the epistemological equivalent of a mob poker game.

The best bet is to avoid Wikipedia on all political, health, and climate related matters. Also, avoid Google AI unless you want to deal with a neutral matters, e.g., how many counties are in Idaho or what is today's conversion rate between the Euro and the U.S. dollar.

For health related matters, brighteon.ai is a great source, as it draws from alternate health and non-leftist medical sources. For other matters, yandex.com is a lot better than other search engines, which largely use Google type searches. It will draw from conservative, libertarian, and alt-right sources and not push CNN, ABC, the New York Times, etc., to the top 20 searches.

I have one of those relatives—and I treat them like an AI.

I get them to agree with Fact A and then Fact B from sources they trust.

Then I show them how Fact A contradicts Fact B and watch them turn red and then purple—and then I leave the room in case their head explodes.

Lol.

—
Example...

Fact A: We need to save democracy because it is a great form of government because people in large numbers will make wise decisions.

Fact B: The average IQ is 100. Most people believe a bunch of really dumb things (list things leftists hate with over 50% approval ratings).

Well I wonder if they would do better than the “seminar callers” or “seminar posters.” Remember those? “I am a Republican but I don’t always agree with the Republican viewpoint” then proceed with their talking points.

I remember Rush would be able to identify them early and have some fun with them and then end the call playing a “Seminar Caller” parody song with someone imitating James Carville’s voice singing it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.