Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Local Council Elections. Should We Check Facts We Post on this website?
I'm no longer a member of any political party. I still regard elections and voting as important. And I've recently noticed that one member of this website posted a mistaken key fact about the May 2026 election. I consider that as citizens we should try to check and correct such facts if possible.
There are two - NOT THREE - Council seats available in some wards. Including St Ann's Ward.
From the Green Party website it appears that Cllr Paton is not standing as a candidate in May.
I regard it as a fact that The Greens rightly judge Climate Change is one of the major threats to our planet.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think you are giving platforms like these too much credence. I think I may have mentioned this elsewhere but a little experiment was carried out by a friend a few weeks ago. He edited the Wikipedia entry of a famous person and stated that a famous footballer was this celebrity’s godson. A few days later he googled both names and AI confidently stated their godmother/godson relationship, citing the Wikipedia entry as the source (the claim has of course now been deleted). If that can happen with a single false ‘fact’…
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
Hmm, giving the inaccuracies I can only think this post was made to highlight what not to do in an ironic way.
The Grokipeida definition is completely wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Andrew, I am unfamiliar with Grokipedia which is why I asked Chat about it. As you have superior knowledge in this, could you—for the benefit of a wider audience if not for me—provide chapter and verse as to where in your opinion, ChatGPT's description of Grokipedia is wrong?
-
-
Well it's entirely wrong. It's not a wiki about Grok, it's a knock-off of Wikipedia filtered through Grok. It's got millions of pages covering a whole variety of topics (many of which are AI slop).
I found it amusing that a post entitled Fact Checking on a thread about fact checking was so bereft of facts but a salutary lesson as to how easy it is for absolute garbage to propagate.
-
-
If never heard of it so I Googled ‘Is Grokipedia accurate’. This is what came out.
-
-
Maybe this explains why ChatGPT is wrong about Grokipedia?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/24/latest-chatgpt-m...
-
-
Ian, thanks for the link.
AI that feeds on other AI seems to be a recipe for trouble. ChatGPT ought not use Grokipedia as a source, let alone a reliable one.
Even if ChatGPT's earlier description of Grokipedia is inaccurate, I am not persuaded that Grokipedia is, or is or even likely to be, a good source to check facts. I won't be using it.
Where there is slightest doubt about any AI response, either one's own intelligence should be engaged or one should cross-check; triangulate; check with an independent source.
If ChatGPT claims something to me I know to be wrong, I will correct it. I will continue to use ChatGPT, not because I believe everything it responds with (some of it is mistaken), but because on the whole I have found it to be hugely useful.
Not all AI is the same. For example the blandishments in eBay ads generated by AI, adds nothing and I wish I could suppress it. Not all users of Microsoft's intrusive AI "Co-Pilot" (hijacker?) find it useful.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
