top of page
Search

Why Large Language Models Can't Replace Encyclopedias

Hands turn pages of an encyclopedia on a wooden table, with a glowing digital brain and letters rising from the book, under warm lamplight.

1. Introduction: The Divergence of Digital Truth

The trajectory of human knowledge preservation has historically moved through distinct epochs, from the oral traditions of antiquity to the illuminated manuscripts of the monastic age, and finally to the democratized, print-based authority of the Encyclopédie in the Enlightenment. In the twenty-first century, this trajectory underwent a radical discontinuity with the advent of the internet, culminating in the rise of Wikipedia. For nearly twenty-five years, Wikipedia has served as the de facto "gold standard" of online information, a sprawling, collaborative monument to the idea that truth is best approximated through transparent, community-driven consensus.1 However, the digital landscape is currently witnessing a new rupture: the emergence of "Grokipedia," an encyclopedia generated not by human volunteers, but by the probabilistic calculus of artificial intelligence.3

Launched in late 2025 by xAI, the company founded by Elon Musk, Grokipedia represents more than just a competitor; it is an ideological and epistemological challenge to the established order.1 While Wikipedia relies on the messy, bureaucratic, and fundamentally human process of debate and citation, Grokipedia promises a streamlined, "truth-seeking" alternative powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) and real-time data ingestion from the X platform (formerly Twitter).4 This report posits that despite the technological allure of the latter, Wikipedia remains the superior model for reliable knowledge preservation. The argument presented here is not merely nostalgic but structural: the architecture of LLMs, which function as probabilistic engines in vector space, is fundamentally ill-suited for the binary rigor required of an encyclopedia, whereas Wikipedia’s "human-in-the-loop" governance provides the essential verification layer that prevents information from collapsing into hallucination.

The conflict between these two platforms—one a non-profit giant maintained by volunteers, the other a for-profit experiment driven by GPUs—encapsulates the broader tension of our era: the struggle between consensus-based truth and algorithmic probability. To understand why Wikipedia retains its crown, we must dissect the very machinery of how these systems "know" anything at all. We must look beyond the user interface and into the server farms, the edit logs, and the neural weights that define the boundaries of digital reality.

2. The Architecture of Knowledge: Human Consensus vs. Vector Probability

To evaluate the reliability of Grokipedia versus Wikipedia, one must first understand that they are not merely different websites, but different species of information architecture. They operate on distinct substrates—one symbolic and graph-based, the other statistical and vector-based—which dictates their respective relationships with accuracy and truth.

2.1 The Symbolic Web: Wikipedia as a Knowledge Graph

Wikipedia is built upon a foundation of symbolic logic. In computer science terms, it functions as a Knowledge Graph. This means that information is stored as discrete entities (nodes) connected by specific, defined relationships (edges). For example, the entry for "Elon Musk" is a node, and it has a hard-coded relationship link to the node "SpaceX" with the label "founder of".6 This structure is rigid, binary, and traceable. When a user reads a sentence on Wikipedia, that sentence exists because a human editor typed it, and crucially, linked it to a citation. The epistemological framework here is explicit knowledge representation.

The underlying technology, MediaWiki, allows for a complete, immutable history of every change. This "version control" for truth means that the state of an article at any given second is the result of a cumulative, additive process of human verification.7 If an error is introduced, it is a discrete piece of bad data—a "diff"—that can be reverted without affecting the rest of the system. This modularity is key to Wikipedia's stability. The "truth" of a Wikipedia article is not generated on the fly; it is retrieved from a static database of consensus states.

2.2 The Vector Space: Grokipedia and the Fluidity of Meaning

Grokipedia, conversely, is built on Large Language Models (specifically Grok-2 and Grok-3) which operate in high-dimensional vector space.8 In this architecture, words and concepts are not stored as definitions, but as arrays of numbers (vectors). The model "learns" by ingesting massive amounts of text and calculating the statistical probability of one word following another. "King" is mathematically related to "Queen" not because the model understands monarchy, but because the vector for "King" minus "Man" plus "Woman" lands in a coordinate space near "Queen".6

This architectural difference has profound implications for accuracy. When Grokipedia answers a query, it is not retrieving a fact from a database; it is predicting a sequence of text that statistically resembles an answer. This is known as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). The system searches for relevant documents (from the web or X), converts them into vectors, finds the most similar vectors to the user's query, and then synthesizes a response.9

While this allows for fluid, conversational prose that can synthesize disparate ideas far better than a human could in seconds, it introduces a fatal flaw for an encyclopedia: hallucination. Because the model is optimizing for semantic smoothness—making the sentence sound good—it can bridge logical gaps with fabricated information if that information fits the statistical pattern of the sentence.10 In a vector space, "truth" and "plausible fiction" are often neighbors. A symbolic graph like Wikipedia separates them by definition; a vector space blurs them by proximity.

2.3 The Processing Cost of Truth

Another critical distinction lies in the computational cost of verification. Wikipedia’s architecture is lightweight; serving a static text page requires negligible compute power. Grokipedia, however, relies on massive inference compute. Generating a single response using a model like Grok-3 (trained on 100,000 GPUs) is energy-intensive and expensive.11

This creates an economic pressure on the "truth." To save costs, AI systems often use "quantization" (reducing the precision of the numbers) or smaller models, which increases the error rate. Wikipedia’s "human compute" is free (volunteer labor), meaning there is no economic incentive to compress the truth or cut corners on verification. The volunteer editor creates the content once, and it is read millions of times. The AI must re-generate the content every time it is asked, introducing a non-zero probability of error with every single query.

3. Epistemology and Verification: The "Ground Truth" Problem

The core confrontation between these platforms is philosophical. How do we determine what is true? Wikipedia and Grokipedia offer opposing answers.

3.1 Wikipedia: Verifiability, Not Truth

Wikipedia’s governing philosophy is encapsulated in its core policy: "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:V).12 This may sound counterintuitive, but it is a sophisticated safeguard against dogmatism. Wikipedia does not claim to know the absolute truth of the universe. Instead, it claims to accurately report what reliable secondary sources have said about the universe.

This shifts the burden of truth from the encyclopedia to the broader ecosystem of journalism and academia. If the New York Times, The Lancet, and Nature all report that a vaccine is effective, Wikipedia reports that consensus. If new evidence emerges and those sources change their stance, Wikipedia updates.14 This creates a chain of custody for information. Every claim is a pointer to an external authority.

This reliance on "Secondary Sources" is the immune system of Wikipedia. It prevents "Original Research" (WP:NOR), meaning editors cannot publish their own theories, no matter how true they believe them to be.12 This effectively blocks the encyclopedia from becoming a platform for conspiracy theories that thrive on "connecting the dots" in novel ways—something AI is particularly prone to doing.

3.2 Grokipedia: "First Principles" and the Illusion of Objectivity

Grokipedia, influenced by Elon Musk’s philosophy, aims for a "First Principles" approach to truth, often framing itself as "Maximum Truth-Seeking".5 The implication is that mainstream sources (media, academia) are biased, and therefore the AI should derive truth from raw data, including social media discourse on X.15

However, this approach suffers from a recursive epistemology problem. An AI cannot go out into the physical world and verify if it is raining; it can only read text about rain. If the AI is instructed to skepticism regarding "mainstream media," it must source its "truth" from somewhere else. In Grokipedia’s case, this often means "citizen journalism" on X or alternative media.3

The danger here is the collapse of hierarchy. In Wikipedia’s epistemology, a peer-reviewed paper in Science outweighs a million tweets. In Grokipedia’s probabilistic model, if a million tweets repeat a falsehood, that falsehood gains statistical weight in the vector space, potentially overpowering the singular truth of the scientific paper.17 This vulnerability to "data voids"—where a sudden flood of coordinated disinformation overwhelms the model—makes Grokipedia structurally fragile in a way Wikipedia is not.

3.3 The Paradox of Synthetic Verification

Grokipedia claims to use "AI verification" to fact-check itself.18 This is circular reasoning. If the model is checking its own output using the same training data that generated the output, it is merely confirming its own biases. External analysis has shown that when Grokipedia "fact-checks," it often cites non-existent sources or hallucinates URLs—a phenomenon known as "citation bluffing".1

In contrast, Wikipedia’s verification is adversarial. An editor adds a claim; a different editor, often with opposing views, checks the citation. If the citation fails, the claim is removed. This human friction—the debate, the edit war, the compromise—acts as a refining fire that burns away falsehoods. AI generation is frictionless, and in that smoothness, errors slide through undetected.

4. The Reliability Crisis: Hallucinations, Vandalism, and the Test of Time

The theoretical risks of AI encyclopedias manifested concretely following Grokipedia's launch. Comparative studies and real-world usage have highlighted significant reliability gaps.

4.1 The Hallucination Epidemic

The most disqualifying feature of Grokipedia as a "gold standard" is the persistence of hallucination. Unlike a human error, which is usually a typo or a misconception, an AI hallucination is a complete fabrication presented with total confidence.

One prominent case involved the Canadian singer Feist. Grokipedia’s article on her was largely plagiarized from Wikipedia but included a startling addition: that her father had died in May 2021. In reality, he was alive. The AI had likely ingested data about other celebrity deaths or song lyrics involving loss and probabilistically wove a tragedy into her biography to fit a narrative pattern.1 Because the AI operates on probability, not fact, it filled the "biography slot" with a statistically plausible (but factually wrong) event.

Another example occurred with the Tesla Cybertruck entry. Grokipedia’s text read like marketing copy, using emotive words ("enthuses," "exposes") and aggressively defending the vehicle against "left-wing media bias" regarding rust issues, citing anonymous "owner forums" as authority.20 Yet, in the same article, it contradicted itself by admitting demand had softened. This lack of internal logical consistency—where paragraph A contradicts paragraph B—is a hallmark of LLMs, which generate text sequentially without a holistic understanding of the document's logic. Wikipedia’s editors, by contrast, enforce internal consistency through review.

4.2 Handling Breaking News: The "Real-Time" Trap

Grokipedia’s marketing touts its "real-time" access to X as a major advantage over Wikipedia.21 However, this speed often comes at the cost of accuracy.

During the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, Wikipedia locked its main election articles. Only "Extended Confirmed" editors (those with 500+ edits and 30 days of tenure) could make changes, and every addition required a citation from a top-tier source like the AP or BBC.23 This resulted in a boring, static, but highly accurate record.

Grokipedia, ingesting the live feed of X, became a mirror for the chaos of the moment. Reports indicate that in the immediate aftermath of news events, the AI struggled to differentiate between verified reports and viral conspiracy theories. For instance, it notably amplified deepfake videos as "breaking news" regarding Venezuelan politics because the content was trending on X, lacking the editorial judgment to wait for verification.19 This illustrates that "real-time knowledge" is often an oxymoron; knowledge requires the passage of time for verification. Real-time data is merely information, and often, it is noise.

4.3 Wikipedia’s Immune System: The Bots That Guard the Wall

Critics often cite Wikipedia’s open editing policy as a vulnerability. "If anyone can edit it, how can I trust it?" This ignores the sophisticated automated defense systems that patrol the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia employs anti-vandalism bots like ClueBot NG. This bot utilizes an artificial neural network and Bayesian statistics to score every edit made to the site in real-time. It is trained on millions of past examples of vandalism. If a user replaces a page with obscenities or gibberish, ClueBot NG detects the pattern and reverts the edit within seconds—often faster than a human reader can refresh the page.24

Beyond bots, the ORES (Objective Revision Evaluation Service) system uses machine learning to flag "damaging" edits for human review. This highlights a crucial distinction: Wikipedia uses AI to assist human judgment (classifying edits for review), whereas Grokipedia uses AI to replace human judgment (generating content). The former leverages AI as a tool for resilience; the latter relies on it as a source of truth.

The "Watchlist" mechanism adds another layer. Thousands of experts maintain watchlists of articles in their field. A physicist monitoring the "Quantum Mechanics" page receives an alert the moment a change is made. This distributed vigilance creates a "many-eyes" effect that makes subtle vandalism difficult to sustain.26 Grokipedia has no such mechanism; there are no "watchers" of the AI’s output because the output is generated anew for each user.

5. Sociological Dimensions: Bias, Governance, and Community

The divergence between the two platforms extends into the social and political realms. The governance structures—one a decentralized non-profit, the other a centralized corporate product—dictate the incentives and biases of the content.

5.1 Systemic Bias vs. Algorithmic Bias

It is widely acknowledged that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias. Its editor base skews male, Western, and educated, leading to underrepresentation of topics related to the Global South or women’s history.27 However, the community is self-aware of this flaw and actively combats it through initiatives like "Women in Red" (a project to create biographies of women). The bias is visible, debated on Talk pages, and slowly corrected.

Grokipedia substitutes this for algorithmic bias, which is opaque and harder to correct. Because the model is trained on the internet (which contains hate speech, bias, and errors) and specifically tuned by xAI to be "anti-woke," it often overcorrects. Analyses have shown Grokipedia framing fringe conspiracy theories, such as "White Genocide," as legitimate geopolitical events, and describing historical revisionists in glowing terms as "dissenters".1

This is not merely a "right-wing" bias replacing a "left-wing" one; it is a structural failure to distinguish between fringe and mainstream. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy mandates "due weight"—a flat Earth theory does not get the same space as round Earth geography. Grokipedia’s "First Principles" approach, by questioning the consensus, often elevates the fringe to equality, creating a "false balance" that misinforms the reader.28

5.2 The "Talk Page" as a Democratic Forum

One of Wikipedia’s most underrated features is the Talk page. Behind every article is a forum where the content is debated. If a reader wants to know why an article describes a conflict in a certain way, they can read the arguments that led to that decision.7 This transparency allows the reader to understand the construction of the knowledge.

Grokipedia lacks this completely. The AI generates the text from a "black box." There is no record of why it chose the word "terrorist" vs. "militant," or why it included one source and ignored another. The user is presented with a fait accompli—a finished product with no visible history. This opacity is a regression from the democratic standards of the open web.30

5.3 Economic Incentives and the Ouroboros Effect

The sustainability of the ecosystem is also at risk. Wikipedia is a public good, funded by donations, with no profit motive to sensationalize content. Grokipedia is a commercial product. As xAI seeks to monetize, there is a risk that the AI will be tuned to be "engaging" rather than dryly accurate.

Furthermore, Grokipedia is largely parasitic on Wikipedia. Studies show that a significant portion of its content is "lifted" or summarized directly from Wikipedia articles.18 This creates the Ouroboros Effect (a snake eating its own tail). If AI encyclopedias replace human ones, where will the AI get new training data? AI cannot do original research; it cannot go to a library archive or interview a witness. It relies on human labor to generate the "seed corn" of knowledge. If Grokipedia destroys the incentive for Wikipedians to write, it eventually starves itself of the very data it needs to function.32

6. The Future of the Encyclopedia: Augmentation, Not Replacement

The future of digital knowledge is unlikely to be a total victory for AI-generated text. Instead, we are seeing the limits of what LLMs can achieve in the domain of rigorous fact.

6.1 Wikipedia’s AI Strategy: The Cyborg Editor

Wikipedia is evolving. The Wikimedia Foundation has launched the Wikifunctions project and Abstract Wikipedia. These initiatives aim to create a language-independent database of functions—logical truths that can be rendered into any language.33 This is a move toward symbolic AI, which is reliable, rather than generative AI, which is creative.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is deploying AI tools to handle the drudgery of editing—formatting citations, checking for dead links, and translating content—while explicitly rejecting the use of LLMs to write articles.34 The philosophy is "AI as librarian, Human as author." This hybrid approach preserves the accountability of human authorship while leveraging the speed of machines.

6.2 The Niche for Grokipedia

Grokipedia will likely find its place not as a "gold standard" of record, but as a dynamic briefing engine. For ephemeral queries—"What is the vibe on Twitter about the debate right now?"—Grokipedia is superior. It captures the zeitgeist, the immediate emotional temperature of the web.17 It is a tool for synthesis of opinion, whereas Wikipedia remains the tool for verification of fact.

7. Conclusion: The Indispensability of Human Judgment

The comparison between Grokipedia and Wikipedia is a lesson in the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Grokipedia possesses artificial intelligence—the ability to process data at superhuman speeds and mimic the patterns of language. But it lacks wisdom—the ability to discern the credibility of a source, to understand the moral weight of a historical claim, and to prioritize truth over engagement.

Wikipedia remains the gold standard because it is built on a foundation of accountability. Every sentence is a claim backed by a source; every edit is a decision made by a human who can be questioned. The "Citation Needed" tag is more than a request for a link; it is a philosophical stance that demands proof.

In an era of deepfakes, bot swarms, and hallucinating algorithms, the "slowness" of Wikipedia is its greatest asset. It acts as a cooling mechanism for the overheated information economy. While Grokipedia chases the "real-time" pulse of the internet, risking the ingestion of viral falsehoods, Wikipedia waits for the dust to settle. It remains the anchor of truth in a digital sea that is increasingly turbulent. Until an AI can demonstrate not just the ability to write, but the ability to doubt, to verify, and to take responsibility for its words, the human-led consensus of Wikipedia will remain the definitive record of our world.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key Features

Feature

Wikipedia

Grokipedia

Epistemology

Consensus-Based: Truth is verified by citing reliable secondary sources (WP:V).

Probabilistic: Truth is a statistical likelihood derived from vector training data and X posts.

Content Authorship

Human Volunteers: ~265,000 active editors debating and curating.

Generative AI: Grok-2/3 models synthesizing text via RAG.

Architecture

Knowledge Graph: Symbolic, linked data (Nodes & Edges). Rigid and traceable.

Vector Database: High-dimensional embeddings. Semantic but prone to hallucination.

Response to Error

Reversion: Bad edits are reverted to previous states (Version Control).

Regeneration: Errors are embedded in the model weights or context window; requires re-prompting.

Update Speed

Variable: Instant for major news (high scrutiny), slower for niche topics.

Real-Time: Ingests X data instantly, but lacks verification filters for breaking misinformation.

Transparency

Total: Public edit history and "Talk" pages for every article.

Opaque: "Black Box" generation with no insight into algorithmic decision-making.

Bias Mitigation

Policy-Driven: NPOV policy and diverse editor debate.

tuning-Driven: "Anti-woke" system prompts and training data selection.

Cost Model

Non-Profit: Donation-based. No incentive for clickbait.

For-Profit: Subscription/Ad-based. Incentive for engagement and retention.

Table 2: Technical Specifications of Underlying Systems


Metric

Wikipedia (MediaWiki)

Grokipedia (Grok-2/3)

Database Type

Relational (MariaDB) + Search (Elasticsearch)

Vector Database (Embeddings) + Inference Engine

Verification Method

Citation of Secondary Sources (URLs, DOIs)

Internal Consistency & First Principles (Self-Consistency)

Vandalism Defense

ClueBot NG (Bayesian Neural Net) + ORES

Filtering of inputs + RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback)

Context Window

N/A (Article length limits only)

~128,000 tokens (Grok-2) 36

Data Source

Curated citations from published literature

The Open Web + The X Platform (Tweets/Posts)

Works cited

  1. Grokipedia - Wikipedia, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia

  2. WikiCredCon 2025 Tackles Credibility Threats to Wikipedia - Wikimedia Diff, accessed January 15, 2026, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/01/23/wikicredcon-2025-tackles-credibility-threats-to-wikipedia/

  3. With Grokipedia, Top-Down Control of Knowledge Is New Again | TechPolicy.Press, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.techpolicy.press/with-grokipedia-topdown-control-of-knowledge-is-new-again/

  4. Elon Musk launched Grokipedia. Here's how it compares to Wikipedia | PBS News, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/elon-musk-launched-grokipedia-heres-how-it-compares-to-wikipedia

  5. 2025-1005 Grokipedia - Overview - follow the idea - Obsidian Publish, accessed January 15, 2026, https://publish.obsidian.md/followtheidea/Content/AI/2025-1005++Grokipedia+-+Overview

  6. Knowledge Graph vs Vector Database: Key Differences, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.puppygraph.com/blog/knowledge-graph-vs-vector-database

  7. Grokipedia falls flat, but AI is already rewriting Wikipedia's future - Impact of Social Sciences, accessed January 15, 2026, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/11/17/grokipedia-falls-flat-but-ai-is-already-rewriting-wikipedias-future/

  8. Top 15 Vector Databases for 2026 - Analytics Vidhya, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2023/12/top-vector-databases/

  9. Grok Collections API - xAI, accessed January 15, 2026, https://x.ai/news/grok-collections-api

  10. How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison - arXiv, accessed January 15, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26899v3

  11. Grok 3 Beta — The Age of Reasoning Agents - xAI, accessed January 15, 2026, https://x.ai/news/grok-3

  12. Wikipedia:Core content policies, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies

  13. Wikipedia:Verifiability, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

  14. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ

  15. The complete guide to Grok AI - DataNorth AI, accessed January 15, 2026, https://datanorth.ai/blog/the-complete-guide-to-grok-ai

  16. An early look at Elon Musk's new online encyclopedia - Texas Standard, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/elon-musk-grokipedia-grok-wikipedia-ai-encyclopedia/

  17. Wikipedia vs Grokipedia: Comparing Accuracy, AI Integration, and User Experience, accessed January 15, 2026, https://lyxelandflamingo.com/blogs/seo/wikipedia-vs-grokipedia-comparing-accuracy-ai-integration-and-user-experience/

  18. Elon Musk's Grokipedia Sparks Controversy Over Wikipedia Copying - Evrim Ağacı, accessed January 15, 2026, https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/elon-musks-grokipedia-sparks-controversy-over-wikipedia-copying-514190

  19. Musk's AI-powered Grokipedia: A Wikipedia spin-off with less care to sourcing, accuracy, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/nov/12/Grokipedia-Wikipedia-AI-citations/

  20. Grokipedia's Article on the Cybertruck Clearly Shows Why the Whole Project Is Doomed, accessed January 15, 2026, https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/grokipedia-article-cybertruck

  21. Grok | xAI, accessed January 15, 2026, https://x.ai/grok

  22. Grok's Real-Time X Access: How it Changes AI Answers - Arsturn, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.arsturn.com/blog/how-groks-real-time-twitter-access-changes-ai-answers

  23. What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we're doing next - Medium, accessed January 15, 2026, https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/what-wikipedia-saw-during-election-week-in-the-u-s-and-what-were-doing-next-1fa27aa30422

  24. Wikipedia bots, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_bots

  25. Meet “ClueBot NG”, an AI Tool to tackle Wikipedia vandalism - Wikimedia Europe, accessed January 15, 2026, https://wikimedia.brussels/meet-cluebot-ng-an-anti-vandal-ai-bot-that-tries-to-detect-and-revert-vandalism/

  26. Vandalism on Wikipedia, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia

  27. Reliability of Wikipedia, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

  28. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, accessed January 15, 2026, https://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

  29. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

  30. Elon Musk Just Launched Grokipedia — Here's What You Need to Know - Medium, accessed January 15, 2026, https://medium.com/@mhuzaifaar/elon-musk-just-launched-grokipedia-heres-what-you-need-to-know-6dbb8cfd9683

  31. Grokipedia touts AI-powered depth. The reality: heavily borrowed Wikipedia entries., accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2025/grokipedia-wikipedia-copy-ai-errors/

  32. In the AI era, Wikipedia has never been more valuable - Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 15, 2026, https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/11/10/in-the-ai-era-wikipedia-has-never-been-more-valuable/

  33. Wikifunctions:Status updates, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates

  34. Our new AI strategy puts Wikipedia's humans first - Wikimedia Foundation, accessed January 15, 2026, https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/

  35. Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Tools, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Tools

  36. xAI Releases Grok-2: Key Features, Comparisons and Impact | by Leo Jiang - Medium, accessed January 15, 2026, https://medium.com/ai-business-asia/xai-releases-grok-2-key-features-comparisons-and-impact-dc9682bb5f15

Comments

bottom of page