Wikipedia has just released its top 20 most read articles - see below.
As expected, the top 20 is dominated by America. As I hadn't come across Ed Gein, I had to look him up on Wikipedia - he was an American serial killer.
Perhaps less expected, deaths this tear came in at number two - deaths is always a popular Wikipedia entry each year. Related to deaths, the deaths of Charlie Kirk, Ozzy Osbourne and Pope Francis no doubt explain their high positions in the top 20. Throw in Ed Gein and it seems Americans are preoccupied with death!
Do you regularly use Wikipedia? And if so, do you trust its entries?
I regularly use Wikipedia, at least once a day. I tend to use the online encyclopedia to find out about so-called facts (eg names, dates, places). I have found its entries to be very reliable though I wouldn't use it as my only source for more controversial topics that prompt a wide range of opinions (eg Israel/Palestine, Trump's MAGA, Ukraine/Russia war).
I'm in the middle of an experiment checking the accuracy of search results using artificial intelligence (AI), Google's Gemini AI tool to be precise. I have found so far that AI isn't very reliable. The other notable finding is the close resemblance of Google's Gemini search results to the entries of Wikipedia in many cases. AI, it seems, is just stealing from Wikipedia. I fear for the future of Wikipedia as people will increasingly skip the encyclopedia and use AI instead.
I'll reveal the results of my ongoing experiment soon, probably early next year at the rate I'm going.
10
24 comments
No, I hardly ever use Wikipedia. Years ago I used it occasionally, but after it gave me a couple of overly biased and misleading pieces of information, I said goodbye to it for good.
And by the way, the information provided by AIs is also unreliable and often biased by its creators, but at least you can ‘talk’ to it and make it see its mistake, and even get it to give you the right information, which is not possible with Wikipedia.
Like with any source one has to be careful how to treat what you've found.
On 14 December 2005, the widely respected and peer-reviewed journal, Nature, published an article, 'Internet encyclopaedias go head to head', written by Jim Giles. He found that Wikipedia came very close to the Encyclopædia Britannica for accuracy of its science entries.
@spunkycumfun
Well, yes, and if something truly matters, it’s wiser to check it against at least two independent sources.
@AuraAviatik6 I totally agree. Triangulation is the best way forward.
I was surprised by the Ed Gein listing since he was quite a long time ago, then I remembered that Netflix recently put out a documentary about him (I saw it as a viewing option and went "Yuck, no!" ).
My most recent Wikipedia lookup was the death of James Garfield. Also spurred by Netflix! They did a four part series about the events leading up to his assassination, called Death by Lightning. I didn't know much about that era of history and found it quite interesting.
It seems Netflix can propagate people up the Wiki charts!
I might use Wiki once a month? Not too often.
So far, it seems reliable
Hugs!
Unless a topic is controversial with divided opinions, Wikipedia is a good source of information.
I guess I’m not surprised about the #1 read article when you consider what continues to happen in America politically.
I too am not surprised.
AI is only as good as where it gets its sources from. If they get it from the internet, then you already know how unreliable that can be in many cases. When using AI, what folks must remember is to ask for it to provide it's sources. Once you see where it get's its intel so to speak, you will have a better idea on what you can trust as reliable and what is just online chatter.
I also hold Wikipedia in the same regard since those that input alot of what is posted can be bias and unreliable.
But, as you say AI needs its sources, What happens when AI drives its sources out of business?
@spunkycumfun That's the point, if you don't ask it, it won't tell. No different about where anything comes from. If you can trust the source, then you have the right start. If not, keep looking till you find what you are looking for.
@CallMeMrWrong69 Generally I need three sources saying the same thing before I believe it's true.
@spunkycumfun I go by that rule as well.
I occasionally use Wikipedia. The information I searched seemed accurate. I usually read other sources in addition for a more complete picture. For the Gemini summary on the search results page I usually pass it by. I do read that if I am looking for something specific regarding the steps on a photo editing feature or to find a camera menu setting. On a small number of occasions the info was unclear. In those cases, I go to the vendor documentation. THe AI summary is a shortcut for me.
I've now given up on Google's AI Overview. As you say, Wikipedia is just a start, and in my opinion a good starting place, before looking at other sources. At least Wikipedia, unlike many AI tools, provides sources and references.
@spunkycumfun Yes, the references are quite helpful
I use Wikipedia quite a bit. Maybe not everyday but regularly. I find the results quite accurate (at least as far as I can verify). If does not surprise me that most AI models are directly stealing from it. Isn't that what most grade school kids did when Wikipedia first came out?
. I'll be very interested in the results of your study.
I wonder what AI will do without Wikipedia!
@spunkycumfun I bet it will hallucinate heavily.
@MaxxxPleasure711 It will hallucinate as you say and then just make it up in a trippy way!
I occasionally use Wikipedia to find out what novel a movie is based on so I can read the novel instead.
The novel is often better than the film.
Rarely. No
I can't imagine a Wiki-free life!
Thanks for sharing these top rate Wikipedia Articles, I would not be interested in any of them. And I don't use Wikipedia for anything honestly.
I hope your Monday is a marvelous start to your new week my friend..
I haven't searched for any of these 'Top 20' Wikipedia pages.
I use , but not as the sole source. Give it a 50/50 in times was correct. lol ,when most of the corrections and updates are from people based in Virginia , USA , should be a clue
On 14 December 2005, the highly regarded and peer-reviewed journal, Nature, published an article, 'Internet encyclopaedias go head to head', written by Jim Giles. He found that Wikipedia came very close to the Encyclopædia Britannica for accuracy of its science entries.
@spunkycumfun Lol. better not let the climate change deniers here that fact
@taurean62dbn The climate change deniers seem few on the ground nowadays. I guess they've morphed into climate change sceptics as evidence isn't on their side.
@spunkycumfun Lol. they just the the good book
. The rest fake news 
In general I've found Wikipedia reliable for the "hard facts" that I sometimes struggle with - dates, etc.
Where it could struggle is in interpretation of the significance of events, things that even historical scholars still are divided on.
Wikipedia because it's an open source encylopedia struggles with anything controversial.