<story><title>Wikipedia-grounded chatbot “outperforms all baselines” on factual accuracy</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Recent_research</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Jorge1o1</author><text>Wow, what a list. Eye-opening really.&lt;p&gt;The American Conservative (yellow) ==&amp;gt; The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts.&lt;p&gt;The New Republic (green) ==&amp;gt; There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.&lt;p&gt;This seems like a somewhat arbitrary double standard to be applying. As a reader of both news sources they are both biased, opinionated sources, and I don&amp;#x27;t think you can trust one more than the other. But one is green with &amp;quot;be careful this might be biased&amp;quot; and the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason.</text></item><item><author>dmix</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s also largely going to be the sum of it&amp;#x27;s sources since most (contentious) arguments on Wikis come down to who can cite the most articles, assuming edits get challenged in the first place.&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia maintains a list of &amp;#x27;reliable&amp;#x27; news sites:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&amp;#x2F;Perennial_sources#Sources&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&amp;#x2F;Per...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>rvnx</author><text>They are also the ones judging what is truth and neutrality.&lt;p&gt;This is equivalent to saying:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;A bot trained on the articles that we have written gives the answers that the writers of the articles expected&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>esjeon</author><text>They are not bragging about the bot. They are bragging about how great the dictionary is. There’s this subtle difference in the context.</text></item><item><author>hammock</author><text>“Breaking: Trivia bot trained on the dictionary spells words better than trivia bot trained on high school English papers”</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hughesjj</author><text>Bias != Reliability.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a reason &amp;quot;The Atlantic&amp;quot; is listed green even though it&amp;#x27;s conservative. Hell they list the Christian Science monitor as green for reliability (as they should imo), I don&amp;#x27;t think Wikipedia is demonstrating a bias based on any particular ideology in their sources on this list.&lt;p&gt;This wiki list is a list of sources by reliability.  If you only publish stories which support your bias, but those stories are scientifically sound and don&amp;#x27;t omit context, I don&amp;#x27;t see the problem with using them as a source regardless of bias.&lt;p&gt;If you only allow sources from reliable sources aligned with a particular bias to the exclusion of reliable sources from another alignment, that would be an issue, but I don&amp;#x27;t see evidence of such here.&lt;p&gt;The problem isn&amp;#x27;t the bias.  The problem is the factuality.</text></comment>
<story><title>Wikipedia-grounded chatbot “outperforms all baselines” on factual accuracy</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-07-17/Recent_research</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Jorge1o1</author><text>Wow, what a list. Eye-opening really.&lt;p&gt;The American Conservative (yellow) ==&amp;gt; The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts.&lt;p&gt;The New Republic (green) ==&amp;gt; There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.&lt;p&gt;This seems like a somewhat arbitrary double standard to be applying. As a reader of both news sources they are both biased, opinionated sources, and I don&amp;#x27;t think you can trust one more than the other. But one is green with &amp;quot;be careful this might be biased&amp;quot; and the other is yellow for pretty much the same reason.</text></item><item><author>dmix</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s also largely going to be the sum of it&amp;#x27;s sources since most (contentious) arguments on Wikis come down to who can cite the most articles, assuming edits get challenged in the first place.&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia maintains a list of &amp;#x27;reliable&amp;#x27; news sites:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&amp;#x2F;Perennial_sources#Sources&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&amp;#x2F;Per...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>rvnx</author><text>They are also the ones judging what is truth and neutrality.&lt;p&gt;This is equivalent to saying:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;A bot trained on the articles that we have written gives the answers that the writers of the articles expected&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>esjeon</author><text>They are not bragging about the bot. They are bragging about how great the dictionary is. There’s this subtle difference in the context.</text></item><item><author>hammock</author><text>“Breaking: Trivia bot trained on the dictionary spells words better than trivia bot trained on high school English papers”</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mandmandam</author><text>Wikileaks on zero retractions, and most anti-war news sources: red &amp;#x2F; black.&lt;p&gt;Lest anyone think the problem is that Wikileaks is &amp;#x27;left biased&amp;#x27;.</text></comment>