Can I use grokipedia= ?
Is it allowed?
Should I provide the full url? Or just the page keyword?
Example:
grokipedia=https://grokipedia.com/page/Gotthard_Tunnel
grokipedia=Gotthard_Tunnel
10 Likes
So far I donât think itâs banned and so Any Tags You Like apply, but⊠why? Whatâs the benefit of linking to hallucinated content? I assume the Gotthard Tunnel is an example, so Iâm curious what you would actually link to?
3 Likes
To positively steer your question, it should be about linking to grokipedia= for user use, not sourcing the info. In this respect, OSM doesnât need to link to all websites. This should be done in wikidata= , which doesnât have a Property-id yet, but a few possibly âinterestedâ users are using workarounds.
Examples
5 Likes
Btw anyone âinterestedâ can verify AI source= and linked tracking parameters Search results | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
3 Likes
Wouldnât that break since the wikidata tag can only be used once?
(offtopic from linking to trippy âencyclopediasâ, butâŠ)
The websites I hope will have been verified as actually related and vaguely correct (I know that search enginesâ precis websites often arenât), but using any of this expletive as a source makes no sense. Itâd be great if anytime anyone sees this they comment on the changeset and explain why this use as a source isnât OK.
Edit: Back on dodgy encyclopedias, I note that uncyclopedia has a somewhat related article. That also has limited benefit in OSMâŠ
5 Likes
As @Kovoschiz said, Iâm thinking of a reference for the user that can be integrated into various apps. Given the exponential growth I doubt grokipedia will be the only new encyclopedia that can deliver relevant additional context to the user on a map. Is it not always correct: yes, like literally everything else including wikipedia and openstreetmap. But thatâs overall another discussion. I really just would like to sensibly reference something other than wikipedia.
1 Like
Got any examples?
2 Likes
Gotthard-Tunnel? There are tons of objects, buildings and places that would benefit from that. Basically the same as for wikipedia, but wikipedia is limited. Wikipedia will deny lots of articles due to overall relevancy issues which I understand. Meanwhile in OSM basically anything belongs there that exists. Hence, I see the benefit of a generic website that provides additional context to that exotic specific thing.
what specific additional useful context, that can be verified whether it is LLM hallucination or not is present there?
6 Likes
Does OSM verify wikipedia articles?
I donât know if âAny Tags You Likeâ would apply here, would it? If I created a website with LLM-generated articles for a bunch of places - letâs say, Jamesipedia - could I go around tagging places with jamesipedia=<place>?
More generally, what limits âAny Tags You Likeâ?
1 Like
How big would grokipedia need to be in order to be âallowedâ? What is the metric?
The Russian government made a fork of Wikipedia, do you think we should tag that?
5 Likes
Even though the additional context is made up?
9 Likes
Should we? Should it be used in Russia? How would you tag that?
no, OSM does not verify Wikipedia articles
Grokipedia is as far as I know pure LLM output, so I am curious has anyone got any examples where it is better than Wikipedia at anything, and whether it manages to cite its sources - or is it entirely âtrust our LLM that it has not hallucinated itâ
(in general I would strongly prefer to link it in related Wikidata entries, so we do not need to link bunch of extra additional sites - or maybe Grokipedia manages to list matches to Wikipedia articles? then additional linking is not really needed for data consumers)
8 Likes
I would not, as I am not fan of linking every site on the internet that made article about specific thing
12 Likes
Wikipedia has first-mover advantage. Years ago, we realized it was a mistake to link to a single encyclopediaâs single language edition based on an unstable article title. We started linking to Wikidata because its IDs are language-neutral and much more stable. Wikidata doubles as a hub to a variety of other sites and databases. The Wikipedia tags remain mainly because some mappers have appreciated seeing a human-readable value instead of a numeric ID in the raw OSM tags, but plenty of elements link to Wikidata without linking to Wikipedia. This should not be seen as an endorsement of Wikipediaâs editorial policies to the exclusion of other sites.
The Wikidata community recently rejected a proposal to formalize links to Grokipedia. The proposal was seen as premature, but a revived proposal would be possible after a six-month waiting period. Aside from the content-related concerns, thereâs an issue of stability. When it came to some other forks of Wikipedia, Wikidata insisted on permalinking to numeric article IDs for more stability than article titles. Given the inherent instability of LLM-generated content, permalinks would be that much more important.
19 Likes
A generic website about the OSM element goes into the website key. Data consumers can load additional information from wikidata/`wikipediaâ.
Edit: Clarified after comment from @Mateusz_Konieczny