@tripu

The first one doesnt seem like an attack at all. Its a true statement of fact (wikipedia **is** hierarchical). He compared it to his own company and why he thought his was a better approach.

While he certainly is likely to be wrong about his own company being better, I hardly see what he said in this comment as an attack.

Second one just seems like a joke regarding the wording of the donation header... nothing there seems like an attack to me either.

The third one seems marginally like an attack. Now he is making a legit accusation, one that probably isnt founded. That said non-profits do tend to be insanely wasteful. He **could** be right, i never reviewed their spending.. but its an attack they deserves checking on and I can understand it leaving a bad taste in ones mouth I suppose...

The fact that jimmy doesnt take a salary is at least suggesting this one is BS

@admitsWrongIfProven

@tripu

BTW the notes thing sounds super cool... It is unlikely to produce the quality wikipedia does, as "both sides" doesnt always work well in science... but I could see that being a very interesting resource if done right. The idea of needing consensus from opposing groups and that the result will be the overlap where all sides agree sounds quite interesting, id be curious to see where that goes.

That said I kinda expect Elon to screw it up.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@tripu @freemo @admitsWrongIfProven It's basically Elon complaining that people who know what they're talking about and those that have a scientific or other educational background are the ones spending time on making sure Wikipedia is accurate, which is true.

Meanwhile, he wants literally anyone's viewpoint to be amplified, no matter the accuracy of the claims made.

Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but there are still rules and procedures to ensure verified accuracy of changes made.

@sterlingericsson @tripu @admitsWrongIfProven

> It's basically Elon complaining that people who know what they're talking about and those that have a scientific or other educational background are the ones spending time on making sure Wikipedia is accurate, which is true.

Yes and no.. While the quality of WP is fine it is clear it is not that simple. I have seen countless times where a person with less credentials won an editing war simply because they were a more established editor.

While, generally, better quality editors do tend to rise in ranks it is clear what he said was true, it is a hiarachical system that isnt weighting editors solely by their credentials. I mean this is inevitable since that is hard to do on the internet.

> Meanwhile, he wants literally anyone's viewpoint to be amplified, no matter the accuracy of the claims made.

No, thats not true either. He doesnt want "literally anyone's" viewpoint to be amplified. He wants diverse viewpoints amplified. While its true he isnt prioritizing expertise, but rather documenting consensus it would not be accurate to describe him as simply amplifying any viewpoint with this particular approach.

> Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but there are still rules and procedures to ensure verified accuracy of changes made.

It sure is, and there is no doubt its a great source that is semi-scholarly (cites its sources and does some good due dilligance). I am not arguing that point.

Its more of a comparing apples and oranges kind of deal.. both methodologies have value and should exist, but they are filling very different needs, one is trying to show the academic consensus on a topic, the other is trying to show the consensus that exists int he general population on non-scholarly topics.