Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Fiendish Thingy

(24,671 posts)

1. That's more than a few thoughts

Reply to cab67 (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2026, 12:53 PM

Jun 29

But well said nevertheless.

The TLDR version is:

AI, especially search engine summaries, cannot be trusted.

Wikipedia, while vulnerable to misinformation, has a community and a process to challenge and remove misinformation, as well as to verify sources used to make factual claims. Wikipedia should not be unilaterally rejected as a reliable source of information.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

mike_c

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hoofed crocodiles! And thoughts on AI and online sources for independent research. [View all] cab67 Jun 29 OP

That's more than a few thoughts Fiendish Thingy Jun 29 #1

Not sure I agree. cab67 Jun 29 #3

Is there a particular reason for the ongoing misinformation war in your field of study? Fiendish Thingy Jun 29 #4

It's the enthusiasts I mentioned. cab67 Jun 29 #5

I can see the problem with Wikipedia - they cited the German publication article when adding the "bipedal" claim muriel_volestrangler Jun 29 #6

Neues Jahrbuch has a checkered history. cab67 Jun 29 #7

also - cab67 Jun 29 #8

thanks for your thoughts mike_c Jun 29 #2