That free encyclopaedia the right doesn't like

Wikipedia is certainly not perfect. But it has given itself the tools to overcome its limitations, which is also why we consult it. Anyone can contribute to it. It is written and edited by volunteers. It is financed by readers. It uses the money it raises for infrastructure and to support the Wikimedia Foundation, which provides institutional, technical, and legal support - not content. It allows you to track and attribute every single edit of every single entry. It warns you when you should be particularly careful when reading because the entry is only sketchy or lacks sources. In general, it has set itself the difficult but clear goal of taking a neutral point of view: no opinions, only documented facts and reliable sources, i.e. openly acknowledging misinformation. And it applies a hierarchy of information based on relevance - in practice, it does not equate a ridiculous theory such as terrapianism with one that is provable and on which the scientific consensus converges. In the event of a dispute, the contributors discuss - and the discussions are also public. All with an unambiguous and open licence: content can be reused as one wishes as long as the source is cited (CC BY-SA).

In contrast, Grokipedia is produced by xAI, Musk's company. It has been artificially generated, making it difficult to trace the source material of the texts and identify any human contributions. It is not clear under which licence the contents are released, except for those entries that are declaredly taken from Wikipedia and that take the latter's licence. Factual reconstructions on sensitive topics are biased, as pointed out immediately by the press and non-governmental organisations (while those who believe that intelligent design is a scientifically accredited theory rejoice), and sources are sometimes misused: thus, in the entry on climate change, the sources linked in the initial summary where alleged controversies are mentioned emphasise, on the contrary, the scientific consensus on its anthropic origin. And of course it is not possible to contribute - only registered users are allowed to point out errors and... hope.

In short, on the one hand a common good, on the other the product of a company.

Today, the free encyclopaedia is under attack - in words, with threats to Wikipedians, and with Grokipedia. What is so dangerous about Wikipedia?

The free encyclopaedia has the distinction of being one of the very rare places where we converge, regardless of our beliefs, preferences and values. Secondly, Wikipedia is written by human beings, in a context of increasing production of opaquely generated content. Wikipedia then maintains a direct link with primary sources (archives, cultural and scientific institutions: scholar Iolanda Pensa calls them 'the army of knowledge'), anchoring knowledge to concrete and verifiable data. Learning to assess the quality of information should be an educational priority more than ever, just as it is in everyone's interest to take care of open data repositories.

Like science and democracy, Wikipedia is one of those imperfect but inherently perfectible human constructs that thrive as long as there is trust. This is the focus of Jimmy Wales' book. Grounded in theories and scientific studies that demonstrate human inclinations and collective convenience to cooperation, transparency, and, indeed, trust, Wales outlines seven principles necessary to cultivate it, and celebrates the potential that an enterprising and industrious community that thrives on trust and implements a few pragmatic rules to protect it can express. It is the key ingredient that has allowed a project like Wikipedia to flourish - potentially a compass for non-populist politics.