Grokipedia: The anti-intellectual online encyclopedia:
"Rather than relying on external datasets like the Dublin and Cornell authors (and thus having to limit their conclusions to only those citations covered by these datasets), the Davis authors were able to classify every citation in their dataset. This was achieved by "develop[ing] and appl[ying] a systematic content coding scheme based on [their own] 'Citation Content Coding Manual' [...] to assign each unique citation to exactly one of eight mutually exclusive categories", such as "Academic & Scholarly", "Government & Official", or "User-Generated (UGC)". This scheme was then automatically applied (by Gemini Flash 2.5, aided by an extensive coding manual and vetted against a manual classification of a small sample) to classify the roughly 50,000 citations in the entire dataset.
Regarding RQ2, the results revealed
a fundamental divergence in the substrate of authority used by each platform. Wikipedia is anchored by a dual foundation of "News & Journalism" and "Academic & Scholarly" sources. Together, these two categories account for approximately 64.7% of the global corpus [...] In Grokipedia, the reliance on "News & Journalism" remains robust, merely being reduced by 20 percent. However, the "Academic" pillar drops significantly, experiencing a 3-fold reduction [...]. Grokipedia substitutes scholarly sources with an increase in citations to Corporate & Commercial, Reference & Tertiary, Government & Official, Opinion & Advocacy, –all increasing by almost 50 percent of their Wikipedia share– and especially NGOs/Think Tanks (whose share increases by 3x), and User-Generated Content (UGC) sources (whose share increases by 4x) [...]"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2025/December
#Wikipedia #Grokipedia #Research
