Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology

Reaction to the McSweeney’s Satire

• Many found the piece cringey or dated, saying this “voicey” internet-humor style peaked a decade ago.
• Others liked it as a smug but fair riff on how Wikipedia was once derided by teachers and experts, only to become central to how LLMs “know” things.
• Several explain the “joke”: Wikipedia used to be condemned as unreliable and a cheating tool; now AI is the new target of academic panic, while Wikipedia looks comparatively noble and human.

Wikipedia’s Funding, UX, and Growth

• Some argue Wikimedia’s fundraising banners are misleading given its large reserves and growing overhead, calling spending an “expense growth spiral.”
• Others counter that for a top-traffic site, it still runs on a relatively lean budget and needs funds for editor support and newer projects like Wikidata.
• Multiple users dislike the aggressive donation pop‑ups, especially on mobile, saying they now avoid the site and rely on search engines or LLMs instead.

Reliability, Bias, and Editorial Dynamics

• Strong praise: Wikipedia is seen as far better and more up‑to‑date than traditional encyclopedias, with citations and constant correction by many experts.
• Strong criticism: accusations of systemic ideological bias, activist editors dominating controversial topics (e.g., energy, Gaza, COVID origins), and complaints about a “source blacklist.”
• Others push back: most of the 7M+ articles are non-political; neutrality disputes are localized, and ideological critiques often reflect users’ own priors.
• Examples like the Scots Wikipedia debacle and a journalist’s failed edit war are cited both as failures and as evidence that bad content can eventually be exposed.

Wikipedia vs LLMs and Grokipedia

• Some insist LLMs model language, not knowledge, and their inconsistency makes them poor encyclopedists.
• Others find LLM-generated encyclopedias (specifically Grokipedia) disturbing: uneditable, factually shaky, with reports of politically slanted or pseudoscientific content, seen as a propaganda tool.
• A minority are enthusiastic, calling Grokipedia “shockingly better” on at least some topics (e.g., a nuanced acupuncture article) and hoping competition pressures Wikipedia’s editorial practices.
• Several see AI encyclopedias mainly as a way to poison future training data and blur the line between fact and narrative.

Education, Literacy, and Knowledge Mediation

• Users recall being banned from using Wikipedia in school, now viewed as ironic given later acceptance and today’s LLM concerns.
• Some lament broader declines in literacy and media quality; others argue what changed is humor and media norms, not people’s intelligence.
• There’s agreement that Wikipedia’s core value is translating academic sources into accessible, hyperlinked explanations—distinct from both raw journals and opaque AI outputs.