You favorite tool can easily answer that question

> Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal.

And what did they get trained on in the first place?

Which is funny because if Wikipedia dies, who will continue providing updated training data to these models? It's a weird self-fulfilling prophecy that consolidates without financial replacement.

The same sources Wikipedia gets its information from. You can not even contribute to Wikipedia without providing outside sources, I think, which are usually websites or books

>Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal.

LLMs hallucinate/confabulate. I use Wikipedia to check source info and to find additional information. Of course there are more reliable sources than Wikipedia, but it's useful, still.

I sometimes use neural nets for obscure compound questions (with a so so efficiency), but I can't imagine using NN in place of Wikipedia. I go to Wikipedia to find factual information (by factual I don't mean guaranteed, I mean hard data - years, names, models etc.). How can anyone rely on a random text generator to get factual data?