The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,416
- 4,457
AI + Wikipedia = Grokipedia
- Thread starter The Scarlet Pimp
- Start date
- Mar 30, 2018
- 12,091
- 14,356
Feels clunky but some controversial articles it gave very honest responses don’t ask won’t tell (breaks rules) can it surpass Wikipedia yup, ai is already hurting them, Elon starts slow but then he just makes it happen. But when in doubt always self verify.
- Nov 25, 2017
- 11,571
- 7,556
First time I see the Pimp not going nasty 
The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,416
- 4,457
Musk wants to take over everything. This is his latest.
- Oct 29, 2021
- 8,346
- 3,585
The content is adapted from Wikipedia, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
Then why do we need grokopedia?
Then why do we need grokopedia?
- Feb 24, 2021
- 938
- 148
No images attached, Wikipedia please. Nice try!
Cyber Meta Agency
BANNED
- Sep 25, 2025
- 409
- 42
Maybe Musk wants to jump in to compete with Google
- May 26, 2022
- 134
- 31
not the biggest fan of it
wodzinskan
BANNED
- Oct 20, 2025
- 206
- 67
Honestly, I'm getting kinda tired of Wikipedia's "one true version" of history on controversial stuff. It feels sanitized. That's why I'm leaning into Grokipedia. Yeah, it "adapts" Wikipedia's base, but the key is it adds different perspectives right there in the open—including "The Western View." It doesn't hide its biases, it shows them. Giving you multiple angles on a conflict is just way more honest. Wikipedia feels like a finished lecture; Grokipedia feels like the start of a real conversation. That's why it'll win in the end.
Jont1975
Newbie
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8
- 0
Musk likes trying to shake up big online sites. In This case Wikipedia, that although great for a lot of information, are also controlled in other areas, to maintain a 'mixed truth with lies' and/or outright lies, to maintain a narrative.
Not too similar to that of the mainstream media.
It's funny how those who question certain events or look into possible conspiracies are called 'tinfoil hat' wearers. The difference between those who use their own initiative to question, and the those who follow the media blindly, is the followers would willing where ANYTHING on their head if they were told to do so.
- Feb 28, 2019
- 7,421
- 7,853
Wikipedia has a clear bias on many issues. On some topics, they just write fake narratives based on Google books by unknown authors and lock the pages for editing. So, Wikipedia is not clearly by the people, for the people database. As long as there is no moderation, things can go wrong on so many levels. We need such sites that label media outlets as biased towards a group or community, instead of referring to them as source of truth. It's a good step and might escalate further over time.
doubledhamal
Senior Member
- Mar 24, 2023
- 1,147
- 304
Someone sure paid premium for domain.
wodzinskan
BANNED
- Oct 20, 2025
- 206
- 67
So true! Wikipedia for a movie star's biography? Perfectly usable. Wikipedia for anything truly important? It's turned into a cult. The groupthink is overpowering, and the so-called 'neutral point of view' is just whatever their high priests have decided it is...
eagleeye111
Newbie
- May 31, 2023
- 41
- 12
This is the first version, it will be a lot better in the future.
- May 14, 2023
- 3,924
- 3,934
It seems a Sloppedia...Wikipedia is already biased enough, but tolerable. An AI version trying to rewrite things based on personal agendas is much worse.
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,566
- 6,856
The workflow for getting links from Grokipedia without much issue seems to be:
1) Be logged in with an X account
2) Select a section of text
3) Suggest edit
4) Replace with whatever you want
5) Realise that Grokipedia has no real way of knowing correctness or authenticity
1) Be logged in with an X account
2) Select a section of text
3) Suggest edit
4) Replace with whatever you want
5) Realise that Grokipedia has no real way of knowing correctness or authenticity