I hate the fact that there's no unbiased version of Wikipedia out there.
Want to read about some dude who's labeled a "climate change skeptic" and I just know I can't trust Wikipedia, because that's one of those toxic labels which, once applied, makes a certain kind of person rabidly hate the individual and want to smear him; a certain kind of person who's very prevalent among Wikipedia editors.
So now I have to painstakingly do my own research like some kind of caveman. :blobcat-angery:
This actually doesn't look half bad:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bjorn-Lomborg
Oh, it's LLM-generated.
Seriously, I think LLMs may actually be the solution to this kind of ideological information pollution.
Because you can make an LLM take different stances, and sum up different competing points of view, and if you're feeling lucky, you may even ask it to weigh the different positions against available empiric evidence, though you need to remain skeptical against "published research" as well because peer review is also shit sometimes.
Getting to the truth is often unreasonably difficult relative to the times we're living in. We have globally networked information highways, incredibly sophisticated measurement devices, and ridiculously powerful computers, and we still often end up deciding what's true based on the vibes of our tribe. It's so sad.
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
npub1my…zd6ft
2026-09-16 13:50:22 UTC
Author Public Key
npub1my08e2ty0y5zcgkwda8tz3e8rtpp7qqyq8rfpmswxazqf30478yqwzd6ftSeen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2026-09-16 13:50:22 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "c23db009acdee79e36f2105e8abf4d6ba843e1145cb044ddfec15d602826fc9f",
"pubkey": "d91e7ca96479282c22ce6f4eb147271ac21f000401c690ee0e374404c5f5f1c8",
"created_at": 1789566622,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"emoji",
"blobcat-angery",
"https://fedi.feministwiki.org/emoji/blobcats/blobcat-angery.png"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://fedi.feministwiki.org/objects/1a026126-387c-4f66-bdae-e2e9f535ffe8",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://fedi.feministwiki.org/objects/1a026126-387c-4f66-bdae-e2e9f535ffe8",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "I hate the fact that there's no unbiased version of Wikipedia out there.\r\n\r\nWant to read about some dude who's labeled a \"climate change skeptic\" and I just know I can't trust Wikipedia, because that's one of those toxic labels which, once applied, makes a certain kind of person rabidly hate the individual and want to smear him; a certain kind of person who's very prevalent among Wikipedia editors.\r\n\r\nSo now I have to painstakingly do my own research like some kind of caveman. :blobcat-angery: \r\n\r\nThis actually doesn't look half bad:\r\n\r\nhttps://www.britannica.com/biography/Bjorn-Lomborg\r\n\r\nOh, it's LLM-generated.\r\n\r\nSeriously, I think LLMs may actually be the solution to this kind of ideological information pollution.\r\n\r\nBecause you can make an LLM take different stances, and sum up different competing points of view, and if you're feeling lucky, you may even ask it to weigh the different positions against available empiric evidence, though you need to remain skeptical against \"published research\" as well because peer review is also shit sometimes.\r\n\r\nGetting to the truth is often unreasonably difficult relative to the times we're living in. We have globally networked information highways, incredibly sophisticated measurement devices, and ridiculously powerful computers, and we still often end up deciding what's true based on the vibes of our tribe. It's so sad.",
"sig": "1db172719d55e4311154c60d716b55f5b0ec0f1c9c0089cc9a466c5ecaa9672694dfe848d6161db8592babc1050906c28904bf2326eaa6fb73e6e1f064c1165e"
}