Yeah, I’m aware of that - just wasn’t clear whether you meant Wikipedia or wikis in general.
A little off-topic, but there is a way to disambiguate with “wiki.” If it’s given without an article (“I looked it up on Wiki”) it’s a shortened form of Wikipedia. As “a wiki” (or perhaps “the wiki on [something]” then it’s clear it’s being used in the more general wiki sense. (Of course, though you used “a wiki,” there was still confusion, though to me it was clear.)
Nor can Wiki, nor can most books, nor most experts. It all depends on what you want, how reliable of an answer you want/need. And- how accurate. For example- in a thread about say eating chocolate, and you want to know- "what is the population of the USA? Ai is just fine. Let us say the thread is about how the USA compares in population to other nations- get Wikipedia for a more precise answer. If the answer is population dynamics in the USA- emigration and immigration, birth rate etc, and how it compare- wiki maybe for the bare numbers, but a solid peer reviewed article on why is needed.
In the case of a recipe? Why not AI? But for medical advice? Nope.
Yep.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
But in the past when someone asked a question that could be Googled, some posters used to reply with thing that showed how to use Google- that was indeed a jerkish reply.
AI can be wrong. Someone had some question about something Jewish, but AI brought up the Chabad-Lubavitch answer. Which is often wrong for mainstream judaism.
Correct- unless it is something where there is a lot of opinions and discussion for different sides going on. Wikipedia editors are human, they have bias.