https://t.co/op5s4ZiSwh version 0.1 is now live.

Version 1.0 will be 10X better, but even at 0.1 it’s better than Wikipedia imo.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 28, 2025

Compare the Charlie Kirk entries on both and tell me which one is better, more accurate and without a clear bias

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

I know of an obvious bull**** factoid (not political in any way) thats been in wikipedia for decades, long enough that its reproduced all over the internet, even on a .org historical site (possibly scammy) about the subject of the article. The factoid is still in wikipedia when i checked this morning. The first thing i did when I heard of grokipedia was check it and grok had deleted it and in the change details, it said it was unsupported and likely fabricated and only sourced in circular copies from wikipedia derivatives.

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

The Kraken said:

---

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

---

Is this a serious post?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

---

Is this a serious post?

---

Yes

I surf Wikipedia all the time. Mostly history and geography based subjects. What's wrong with it?

Wiki's interface is better, with clickable links, and better layout. Grok seems to just be repetitive paragraphs on longer subjects.

But this is 1.0

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

The Kraken said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

---

Is this a serious post?

---

Yes

I surf Wikipedia all the time. Mostly history and geography based subjects. What's wrong with it?

---

When it comes to non controversial subjects its generally ok. Anything with multiple view points, however, it tilts heavily towards one side.

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

Yes but its pulling from a wider range of source material and, at least ideally, removing the heavily biased moderators from the equation.

Its not going to be perfect, but wiki has massive room for improvement.

The Kraken said:

---

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

---

You serious, Clark?

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

It does not simply copy. When I quote you, I frequently do a FIFY because it's nonsense. That's what grok is doing.

William Larue Weller said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Just get rid of the dark depressing background... jeezus.

---

Just click on the little moon symbol on the top right and select "light" mode instead.

---

Ah got it.

I think that option should be the default one.

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Yes, this is what it will be.
Then they will say "AI powered" to give it legitimacy because foolish people don't know what AI is and think it is some mythical superpower.

Either way, good on Musk for the attempt. Now can people edit the pages or is is editable by their AI models only?

Logos Stick said:

---

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

It does not simply copy. When I quote you, I frequently do a FIFY because it's nonsense. That's what grok is doing.

---

Does anyone know where Grok is getting it's info for the FIFY? Could it be for those instances there's humans reviewing and inputting that info?

Also, does Grok have a reference section like Wikipedia so people can refer to?

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

1000%
But one caveat. It can be "better" but then it will be a hallucination (made up stuff). Maybe the made up stuff is "better" depending on how we look at it!

Most people don't get this. They think AI is some magical being that "just knows".

Logos Stick said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

---

You serious, Clark?

---

Yes (again)

No article on Will Stancil yet

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

It does not simply copy. When I quote you, I frequently do a FIFY because it's nonsense. That's what grok is doing.

---

Does anyone know where Grok is getting it's info for the FIFY? Could it be for those instances there's humans reviewing and inputting that info?

Also, does Grok have a reference section like Wikipedia so people can refer to?

---

Yes every article posts its sources.

infinity ag said:

---

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

1000%
But one caveat. It can be "better" but then it will be a hallucination (made up stuff). Maybe the made up stuff is "better" depending on how we look at it!

Most people don't get this. They think AI is some magical being that "just knows".

---

I don't think a single person on this thread thinks that.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

Charles Satterfield doesn't count.

infinity ag said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Yes, this is what it will be.
Then they will say "AI powered" to give it legitimacy because foolish people don't know what AI is and think it is some mythical superpower.

Either way, good on Musk for the attempt. Now can people edit the pages or is is editable by their AI models only?

---

It's not that it is some mythical superpower, however, wikipedia cites where its information comes from, so grok can go through those sources and verify and filter out the unsubstantiated, along with its own abilities to search topics. Even if it (wikipedia) cites something and that source states an opinion as fact or a lie as a fact, it "should" be able to cross-reference it and remove those kinds of things. Is it going to be perfect at that, no, but it should improve over time.

As far as "can people edit", you can tell grok, and then it will investigate

Grokipedia isn’t just "updated Wikipedia”, it shows what was wrong, why it was wrong, and what got fixed.
Highlight any line, flag it, add context, and Grok reconsiders in real time.

Human judgment with AI could result in the best and most complete source of truth if we continue… pic.twitter.com/eFdJEls3we

— Thomas Slabbers (@Thomasslabbers) October 28, 2025

The important thing to keep in mind is that neither Grokipedia nor Wikipedia are sources. They are aggregators of information with citations. It is up to the user to vet those sources to determine their veracity.

infinity ag said:

---

amercer said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

amercer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Dream on.

Wikipedia is still the standard. Groko-whatever is good but it will have trouble catching on. First mover advantage. That (and network effects) is why Google+ and other social media failed.

---

I looked up and compared the entries on each for "chicken fried steak". It seems like they got a head start by copying wikipedia.

---

It basically ripped off all of Wikipedia, and then made selective edits to hot button topics the right cares about.

---

Are you arguing this wasn't needed? Wiki had a massive left wing bias. I know published college professors who were blocked by moderators from editing articles in their field.

---

I'm saying that grokopedia is a joke that copied the thing that was apparently so terrible that it needed to be replaced by some super intelligent master AI.

The problem with AI in general is that it can't be better than the information that it gets fed. So you may not like certain pages on Wikipedia, but no AI can just magically make 64 million pages of user created information. It just copies what was already there.

---

1000%
But one caveat. It can be "better" but then it will be a hallucination (made up stuff). Maybe the made up stuff is "better" depending on how we look at it!

Most people don't get this. They think AI is some magical being that "just knows".

---

I'm pretty sure Grok isn't generating these articles on the fly. Instead, there's likely a pipeline of models that scour the web for primary sources and verifiable ground truth on each topic, then synthesize that into structured articles following a consistent format. The system is probably trained to filter out conjecture, opinion presented as fact, and conflicting claims; prioritizing citations, peer-reviewed data, and chronological evidence where possible.
Hallucinations will still creep in occasionally, but the output should be far more grounded and transparent than just prompting ChatGPT or even standard Grok with "tell me everything about X." The key difference is the curated ingestion + verification layer vs the generic models just doing recall from a very large amount of data during its training.