While Wikipedia serves many purposes for different people, such as providing entertainment, helping with learning, and serving as a social network, it also provides valuable content to large businesses like Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
However, the question arises whether or not the mission to be an encyclopedia is comprehensive or accurate enough to define what Wikipedia is. In comparison, ChatGPT also provides a body of information, but it does so without the need to provide support for what is said.
In my estimation, ChatGPT does a better job in organizing raw information than the public can through the processes of Wikipedia. This is a complex issue, but my conclusion is that each platform provides a different product.
Without references, ChatGPT provides better information for the layman and is more transparent about the loose quality of the information it provides.
I believe that there is a lack of examination on the difference between Wikipedia being viewed as an encyclopedia versus the reality that it serves multiple purposes for different individuals and organizations.
I tend to focus on the big picture rather than specific details, and in my opinion, Wikipedia is not the ideal platform for my personal preferences. I am grateful and have respect for those who enjoy using the platform.
