← Back to context

Comment by anematode

2 days ago

Grokipedia is worse than useless. I scanned through an article on a semi-obscure topic which I know quite deeply, because I researched and wrote the Wikipedia article on that topic. There were dozens of factual errors, of course, but the funniest part was how Grok routinely overstated the importance of the subject. No, Grok, this one historical tree is not critical to the ecology of the area. It's just a tree.

I spent a month on and off doing research for that project, visiting libraries and a local historical society, talking to the historian there, looking through Newspapers.com, etc. The Grokipedia article, if it weren't so ridiculous, would be vaguely insulting.

2 comments

anematode

Reply
hagbard_c  1 day ago

What page would that be, both on GP as well as WP? I´d like to have a look at both to see where they differ.

  • anematode  1 day ago

    "El Palo Alto"

    As an example of how bogus this is:

        ... ensuring its projected lifespan extends at least 300 more years

    Not found in the given source and I have no clue where this came from.

        By the mid-1990s, diagnoses confirmed heart rot and advanced decay in the core, exacerbating risks of limb failure and overall toppling without external support.

    Can't find any reference in the cited sources to heart rot or advanced decay; I think it's a fabrication and it's inconsistent with arborists' descriptions of the tree's health. Googling "el palo alto" "heart rot" gives no relevant results.

    etc. etc.; the issue is that a lot of these are plausible, yet wrong.