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
4 Likes
So far I don’t think it’s banned and so Any Tags You Like apply, but… why? What’s the benefit of linking to hallucinated content? I assume the Gotthard Tunnel is an example, so I’m curious what you would actually link to?
2 Likes
To positively steer your question, it should be about linking to grokipedia= for user use, not sourcing the info. In this respect, OSM doesn’t need to link to all websites. This should be done in wikidata= , which doesn’t have a Property-id yet, but a few possibly “interested” users are using workarounds.
Examples
3 Likes
Btw anyone “interested” can verify AI source= and linked tracking parameters Search results | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
2 Likes
Wouldn’t that break since the wikidata tag can only be used once?
(offtopic from linking to trippy “encyclopedias”, but…)
The websites I hope will have been verified as actually related and vaguely correct (I know that search engines’ precis websites often aren’t), but using any of this expletive as a source makes no sense. It’d be great if anytime anyone sees this they comment on the changeset and explain why this use as a source isn’t OK.
Edit: Back on dodgy encyclopedias, I note that uncyclopedia has a somewhat related article. That also has limited benefit in OSM…
As @Kovoschiz said, I’m 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 that’s overall another discussion. I really just would like to sensibly reference something other than wikipedia.
Got any examples?
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?
Does OSM verify wikipedia articles?
I don’t know if “Any Tags You Like” would apply here, would it? If I created a website with LLM-generated articles for a bunch of places - let’s say, Jamesipedia - could I go around tagging places with jamesipedia=<place>?
More generally, what limits “Any Tags You Like”?
How big would grokipedia need to be in order to be “allowed”? What is the metric?
The Russian government made a fork of Wikipedia, do you think we should tag that?
Even though the additional context is made up?
1 Like
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 “trust our LLM that it has not hallucinated it”
(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)
1 Like
I would not, as I am not fan of linking every site on the internet that made article about specific thing
1 Like
Wikipedia has first-mover advantage. Years ago, we realized it was a mistake to link to a single encyclopedia’s 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 Wikipedia’s 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, there’s 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.
3 Likes