> Grokipedia’s entry for “Clinton body count,” a conspiracy theory that falsely links the deaths of multiple people to Bill and Hillary Clinton, cites an unlikely source [InfoWars]
Okay, but in the very example the article gives, the subject matter that Grokipedia cites InforWars on, is what is written on InfoWars, and explicitly calls InfoWars "alternative media". I.e. it's not saying "this is true", it's saying "this is what alternative news site InfoWars says", and is very clear about it. Unless one argues that no encyclopedia should even record what unreliable but prominent sources are saying, I don't see the issue. And while the article tries to imply otherwise, the Grokipedia entry gives largely the same conclusion as the Wikipedia one:
While advocates cite empirical clusters of untimely deaths—far exceeding actuarial norms for such a networked couple—as suggestive of causal foul play, rigorous analyses reveal most incidents as coincidental given the Clintons' decades-long prominence involving thousands of contacts, with no prosecutions or leaked evidence confirming orchestration; dismissals by establishment institutions often overlook investigative lapses, such as Epstein's unchecked cell or Foster's contested forensics, potentially influenced by institutional incentives to protect elite figures.
As this is the only example the article gives before the paywall, I can't comment on the problems with other citations. But one would expect they'd lead with the most egregious case.
like_any_other•56m ago
Okay, but in the very example the article gives, the subject matter that Grokipedia cites InforWars on, is what is written on InfoWars, and explicitly calls InfoWars "alternative media". I.e. it's not saying "this is true", it's saying "this is what alternative news site InfoWars says", and is very clear about it. Unless one argues that no encyclopedia should even record what unreliable but prominent sources are saying, I don't see the issue. And while the article tries to imply otherwise, the Grokipedia entry gives largely the same conclusion as the Wikipedia one:
While advocates cite empirical clusters of untimely deaths—far exceeding actuarial norms for such a networked couple—as suggestive of causal foul play, rigorous analyses reveal most incidents as coincidental given the Clintons' decades-long prominence involving thousands of contacts, with no prosecutions or leaked evidence confirming orchestration; dismissals by establishment institutions often overlook investigative lapses, such as Epstein's unchecked cell or Foster's contested forensics, potentially influenced by institutional incentives to protect elite figures.
As this is the only example the article gives before the paywall, I can't comment on the problems with other citations. But one would expect they'd lead with the most egregious case.