Our world is full of battles. But the encyclopedia war is a war I never imagined.
The word encyclopedia has strong Greek roots, but it began to be imported in Paris in 1750. At that time, a group of “philosophers” (sorry to be called intellectuals) hatched a plan to rebel against the tyranny of the time: the king, the church, and all its commands. There was a time when knowing was the way to rebel against the mayor’s superstitions – and so it was.
Then Senors Denis Diderot and Jean d’Alembert immortalized their names in a bold way. Encyclopedia of scientific, artistic and medical dictionariesa place where all the knowledge of the time is collected and all its mistakes are revealed. Articles were requested for this purpose by many of his comrades. They were probably Voltaire, Rousseau, and many others. In 20 years, 28 volumes, 71,818 articles, threats and prison sentences against the authors, and so many new ideas. These intellectuals, whom we still call “encyclopedias,” paved the way for the French Revolution.
Among the Internet’s abbreviations after finishing with the classic encyclopedia, I found one that recaptures that spirit. Wikipedia This battle is fought by thousands of people who work together to arm a common organization. There is no “authority” to empower communities, one of the few projects that returns to the original illusion that communities, wikis, and the Internet are egalitarian, democratic spaces that are very different from the real world. It’s not there, but Wikipedia That seems to indicate that general construction will work.
So one of his most powerful enemies, the extremely wealthy professional and pure yo-yo brain of Elon Musk, decided to fight back. A few days ago, Señor launched his project. Grokipediaa copy of Wikipedia He wants an AI programmed to propagate his worldview. For now, he’s on his own with English — if he doesn’t know how to learn — and it’s often a joke, but it’s also a lecture on that Laman Laverda.
Jordi Perez wrote a perfect example in these pages, comparing both articles about George Floyd that have their origins in the Black Lives Matter movement. your entry is Wikipedia Empathy así: “On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black American, was killed by 44-year-old white police officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Floyd was arrested after a store employee reported that he had made a purchase with a counterfeit $20 bill.”
bond GrokipediaHowever, he emphasizes that: “George Perry Floyd Jr. was an American man with a lengthy criminal history who was convicted of armed robbery, drug possession, and manslaughter in Texas from 1997 to 2007…” and that he later killed a police officer and that his actions “ignited a mass disturbance that caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property damage.”
The difference is obvious. But what’s more interesting is that we worry about different things in this world. It’s just that no one notices. Everything I say is true and nothing is false.
The big difference is the line of sight. For too long, journalism manuals, teachers, and instructors advocated “objectivity” as a fundamental virtue of the profession. Objectivity does not exist. When someone (including a machine) reports something, they can only use their knowledge and ideas about the world, their subjectivity, to decide what to show. They taught us to think that subjectivity is a bad word, synonymous with deception. It’s not there. This is the only way the subject narrator can say anything. That means focusing on what you think is most important and most useful for telling your story.
So, no Wikipedia to Grokipedia Mienten. That’s not necessary. Each one highlights what is most interesting to him, what he wants to decide. And readers don’t have to ask themselves why I’m being told this.
This is where the current polarization of media consumption begins. Readers seek out media with people they agree with to get perspectives close to their own. And so are we. The problem is not lies, but the collapse of the Laverda myth. There is no truth, there are truths and reports. The problem is not lies, but the end of the myth of objectivity. There is no such thing as objectivity. There are humans and machines who choose what they say when they speak. There is no other way.
Included in the encyclopedia.
About The Author
