Kind: captions
Language: en
You're probably wondering if you can
trust Wikipedia anymore. Maybe you've
noticed certain topics feel slanted or
you've heard people say it's biased.
Well, Elon Musk felt the same way. So,
he did what Elon does. He built his own
AI powered encyclopedia called
Groipedia. And here's the surprising
part. It might actually be making the
misinformation problem worse, not
better. Welcome back to bitbiased.ai, AI
where we do the research so you don't
have to join our community of AI
enthusiasts with our free weekly
newsletter. Click the link in the
description below to subscribe. You will
get the key AI news tools and learning
resources to stay ahead. So in this
video I'm going to take you through
everything you need to know about
Groipedia.
What it is, why Musk built it, and
whether it's actually the solution to
online misinformation or just another
echo chamber. By the end, you'll
understand the real battle happening
right now over who controls truth on the
internet. Let's start with why this even
exists in the first place.
The Wikipedia problem that started it
all. Here's the thing about
misinformation. It's everywhere. Social
media rumors, biased reporting,
manipulated facts. The average person
online is constantly trying to figure
out what's actually true. And for years,
we've all relied on Wikipedia as this
neutral, crowdsourced truthteller. It's
the first result you click on when you
Google pretty much anything, right? But
here's where it gets interesting.
Wikipedia isn't without its critics.
Over the years, it's faced accusations
of political bias from all sides. There
was even a study from the Manhattan
Institute in 2024 that found articles on
conservative topics tended to be written
with more negative sentiment compared to
left-leaning topics. Now, Wikipedia's
co-founder Jimmy Wales disputes these
claims and says the community works hard
to stay neutral. But the perception of
bias that stuck and nobody hammered on
this harder than Elon Musk. By late
2024, Musk was publicly calling
Wikipedia Wikipedia and telling people
to stop donating to it. He even made
headlines with a bizarre offer to donate
$1 billion to Wikipedia if they'd
changed their name to Dikipedia. Yes,
really, that actually happened. Now, you
might think that's just Elon being Elon.
But wait until you see what he did next.
Because Musk wasn't just trolling, he
saw an opportunity.
If Wikipedia couldn't be trusted to be
impartial, then maybe AI could do it
better. Maybe an artificial intelligence
could analyze thousands of sources, cut
through human bias, and deliver pure
unfiltered truth.
That's the dream anyway. And that dream
became Groipedia. What exactly is
Groipedia? Groedia launched on October
27th, 2025. And it's essentially an AI
generated encyclopedia designed to rival
Wikipedia.
The site was built by Musk's company
XAI, the same folks behind the Grock
chatbot.
At launch, Grokipedia had about 800,000
articles, which sounds like a lot until
you realize English Wikipedia had over 7
million at the time. So, Grokipedia
started at roughly 1 the size. Now,
here's what makes this different. When
you visit Gropedia, it looks almost
identical to Wikipedia.
Same minimalist design, same search bar
at the top, same article layout with
references at the bottom. But the way
the content gets created, completely
different. Instead of thousands of
volunteer editors arguing in discussion
pages and meticulously citing sources,
Grokipedia uses Musk's large language
model called Grock to write everything.
According to Musk, the development team
had Grok AI ingest the top 1 million
English Wikipedia articles and then
systematically add, modify, and delete
material by researching the rest of the
internet.
In theory, and I want you to remember
that word theory, this means the AI
checks facts against a wide array of
online sources and expands on topics to
provide more context or correct
perceived errors.
Musk boldly claimed the day after launch
that Grokipedia will exceed Wikipedia by
several orders of magnitude in breadth,
depth, and accuracy.
Orders of magnitude. That's a big
promise. But here's the catch. You can't
edit Groipedia pages at all. This is a
massive departure from Wikipedia's
openedit model where anyone can jump in
and fix an error. On Grokipedia, if you
spot something wrong, you can submit
feedback through a form and presumably
the XAI team or the AI itself might
update it. But there's no public edit
history, no discussion pages, no
community oversight.
Control of the content is entirely top
down. And that raises an obvious
question. If the AI gets something wrong
and we can't see how it's being
corrected, how do we know it's getting
better?
The factchecking problem.
Let's talk about how Grokipedia actually
handles facts. Each article often
carries a tag that says fact checked by
Grock, which sounds reassuring.
It implies the AI has verified
everything, right? Well, not quite.
Early reviews found that Groipedia's
fact-checking is at best loose.
Politifact did a deep dive and found
that when Grokipedia diverges from
Wikipedia on a topic, those changes are
frequently unsourced or based on
questionable sources.
Sometimes Grokipedia actually removes
important context or citations that
Wikipedia had, making an article less
reliable. And here's where it gets a bit
alarming. Observers found Groipedia
citing some truly unusual sources.
A study noted that Groipedia cites
Stormfront, yes, the neo-Nazi forum,
dozens of times as a source.
In other cases, it's referenced casual
Twitter conversations as if they were
authoritative.
These aren't the kinds of sources you
want underpinning your encyclopedia of
truth. So, what's happening here?
Large language models like Grock are
trained on massive amounts of internet
data. And unless they're very carefully
guided, they can treat a conspiracy blog
as equally valid as an academic journal.
The AI doesn't inherently know the
difference between a peer-reviewed paper
and a random forum post. It just
processes text.
One commentator put it bluntly.
Groipedia is the antithesis of
everything that makes Wikipedia good.
Wikipedia's strength is thousands of
diligent humans scrutinizing each
other's work. Groipedia is the product
of a single opaque algorithmic process
that nobody outside XAI can audit.
Even Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's
co-founder, weighed in. He warned that a
closed AI model can't easily replicate
Wikipedia's error correction mechanisms
and predicted Groipedia would contain
massive errors that are hard to detect.
And here's the irony. Even Grokipedia
needs Wikipedia to exist because it
copies so many articles wholesale from
there. Elon's grand vision. Let's zoom
out and talk about why Musk is so
invested in this.
Elon founded XAI in 2023 with the stated
goal of understanding the universe using
AI.
Groipedia fits into that mission as a
repository of human knowledge that his
AI can learn from and contribute to.
But for Musk, this isn't just about
building a cool tech project. It's
personal. He's portrayed almost like a
crusade, a way to fix what he sees as a
corrupt or biased knowledge ecosystem.
He's explicitly positioned it as an
alternative that would purge out the
propaganda he believes has tainted
Wikipedia. And Musk's ambitions, they're
cosmic, literally. He's talked about
preserving Groipedia for posterity by
sending copies etched in a stable oxide
in orbit on the moon and Mars. He's even
reserved a future name for when
Groipedia gets good enough. He wants to
call it Encyclopedia Galactica, inspired
by Isaac Azimoff and Douglas Adams. The
very name suggests he sees this as
spanning not just earthly knowledge but
interplanetary knowledge. It's a flashy
vision.
But even Musk admits they have a long
way to go before reaching that level.
Goals versus reality. The misinformation
paradox.
So here's the million-doll question. Is
Grokipedia actually fighting
misinformation
or is it creating more of it? The goal
was straightforward.
By leveraging AI, Groipedia would
present facts more impartially than
human- edited sources.
The AI could scour millions of web
pages, cross-verify claims, and weed out
inaccuracies that might slip into
Wikipedia due to editorial consensus, or
as Musk would say, activist editing.
In practice, it's been shaky. Really
shaky.
One of the first things observers
noticed was that Groipedia sometimes
amplifies fringe perspectives under the
banner of correcting bias.
Where Wikipedia might summarize a topic
with the consensus view, Groipedia's
version might insert paragraphs
criticizing academia and media as
left-wing, accusing them of suppressing
opposing views. Let me give you a
specific example that'll make your jaw
drop.
The Guardian noted that Groipedia's
article on David Irving, a known
Holocaust denier, portrayed him in
sympathetic terms.
It framed him as representing resistance
to institutional suppression of
unorthodox inquiry and implied his work
had archival rigor that mainstream
sources ignore.
That's not correcting bias. That's
rewriting history.
Grokipedia has also been caught
presenting debunked conspiracy theories
as if they were legitimate debates.
Reviews found it legitimizing conspiracy
theories about HIV, AIDS, vaccines, and
autism, climate change skepticism, and
even race and intelligence pseudocience.
These are areas where there's broad
scientific consensus. Yet, Groipedia
gives considerable weight to fringe
claims. This creates what's called false
balance, a classic misinformation tactic
where fringe views are presented
alongside wellestablished facts, making
them appear equally credible.
If you're a casual reader who doesn't
know the background, you might walk away
thinking, well, there's two sides to
this story. When in reality, one side is
scientific consensus and the other is
thoroughly debunked.
The pattern of bias. Here's where the
pattern becomes crystal clear. Topics
that Musk himself has strong opinions on
tend to be written in a way that mirrors
Musk's own stances.
Articles on subjects he frequently talks
about gender related issues, his
companies like Tesla and Neurolink,
critiques of woke culture are slanted to
align with his views. Consider the entry
on Elon Musk himself. Unlike Wikipedia,
Grokipedia's article on Musk didn't
mention the controversial incident in
January 2025, where Musk made a hand
gesture many interpreted as a Nazi
salute. Instead, the Groipedia version
describes Musk in what one journalist
called rapturous terms and elaborates on
his ideas about a woke mind virus
supposedly afflicting society. Or take
the George Floyd article
on Wikipedia. Floyd's page opens by
noting he was an African-American man
murdered by police, setting context for
why he became a symbol in protests.
Groipedia's page reportedly began with a
detailed account of Floyd's past
criminal record. That shift in emphasis
aligns with certain political narratives
and fundamentally changes what readers
take away from the article. And then
there's the Adolf Hitler entry.
The Atlantic found that Grokipedia's
article on Hitler was thousands of words
longer than Wikipedia's and spent its
early sections praising Hitler's rapid
economic achievements.
The Holocaust wasn't mentioned until
after about 13,000 words. Wikipedia, by
contrast, brings up the Holocaust in the
very first paragraph.
The way information is ordered and
weighted in an article profoundly shapes
what readers remember. And in these
cases, Groedia's choices appear to
downplay atrocities and highlight
counternarratives favored by far-right
viewpoints.
One journalist put it perfectly. Groedia
is essentially a copy of Wikipedia, but
one where in each instance that
Wikipedia disagrees with the richest man
in the world, it's rectified to match
his beliefs.
How is the public actually responding?
So, with all this controversy, who's
actually using Groipedia?
The answer might surprise you. When
Grokipedia first launched on October
27th, 2025, there was definitely
curiosity.
The site saw a spike of over 460,000
visits in the United States on day one.
People wanted to check out the Wikipedia
challenger, especially techsavvy folks
and Musk followers. But here's what
happened next.
Within a couple of weeks, traffic
plummeted. By early November, Grokipedia
was averaging only about 35,000 visits
per day in the US. For context, English
Wikipedia receives billions of page
views per month. So 35,000 a day is
basically a trickle. Why the drop off?
Well, average readers likely noticed
that many Groipedia articles didn't
offer much beyond what Wikipedia already
had. And when articles did differ, those
differences often raised eyebrows.
Missing citations, obvious slants,
questionable claims. Tech journalists
and fact checkers quickly published
pieces pointing out Grokipedia's
shortcomings, calling it a less reliable
research tool than Wikipedia. But here's
where it gets interesting.
There is a segment of people who love
Groipedia, and it's exactly who you'd
expect. Certain right-leaning and
conservative circles welcomed it with
open arms.
Russian nationalist thinker Alexander
Dugan publicly said his Groipedia
article was better than Wikipedia's
version of him. Other far-right figures
praised the site, seeing it as
validation for their narratives. This
reveals a kind of partisan divide.
Americans who admire Musk and share his
distrust of mainstream media are
predisposed to like Groipedia.
Meanwhile, scholars, journalists, and
everyday Wikipedia contributors see it
as a step backward. AI cloaking
misinformation in the guise of an
encyclopedia. For most average
Americans, Grokipedia remains a niche
product. If you're not specifically
following Musk's ventures or active on
X, you might not even know it exists.
After the initial buzz, it hasn't
frequently trended except when a new
controversy pops up like reports about
neo-Nazi citations or extremist content.
The deeper concerns.
Let's talk about what really worries
experts about Grokipedia. It's not just
that it gets some facts wrong. Every
source makes mistakes. The deeper
concern is what researchers call
cloaking misinformation,
wrapping biased narratives in what
appears to be authoritative pros with
references.
Unlike a blatant fake news site,
Groipedia looks polished and scholarly
at a glance.
LK Selig, an AI researcher, described it
as presenting lies with a bibliography.
Even if that bibliography is sparse or
dubious, some readers won't question it.
The format itself lends credibility. And
there's another issue, accountability.
Wikipedia's strength is that every claim
can be traced to a source and challenged
openly.
With Grokipedia, if a misleading
statement is sitting there and it's not
obvious to the reader that it's based on
a single partisan blog post or a Twitter
thread, how do they know to question it?
The Wikipedia Foundation made this
point. Platforms like Groipedia are
selectively extracting content written
by thousands of volunteers and filtering
it through opaque and unaccountable
algorithms. They're writing on
Wikipedia's labor while removing the
transparency and community oversight
that came with it. There's also a
broader societal risk here. We might be
witnessing a fragmentation of shared
reality.
If Grokipedia becomes a knowledge source
primarily for people who already
distrust mainstream consensus and
they're getting different facts than
everyone else that deepens societal
divides.
It's not just about different political
opinions anymore. It's about different
baseline facts. And when people can't
even agree on what's real, productive
dialogue becomes nearly impossible.
What happens next?
As of early 2026, Groipedia is still
evolving. The platform rolled out
version 0.2 in November 2025, indicating
updates to the content generation
process. The number of articles has
jumped from 800,000 to well over 3
million and climbing. So, XAI is clearly
expanding it. But will it get better?
There are a few possibilities.
Optimistically, Musk and his team might
take the criticism seriously. They could
refine the AI model to avoid obvious
biases, rely on higher quality sources,
and site evidence more robustly. If
Grokipedia started backing up its claims
properly and reigned in the
editorializing, it could become more
trustworthy over time.
Musk has the resources to make that
happen.
There's also the possibility of
integrating user feedback more
effectively or even allowing a hybrid
model where AI generated content gets
reviewed by human curators for critical
topics. That could help. But there's a
more skeptical scenario that Groipedia
will remain essentially an ideologically
driven fork of Wikipedia.
Its core appeal to Musk and his base is
that it's not Wikipedia,
meaning it doesn't subscribe to
Wikipedia's consensus on many issues.
If XAI fixes Groipedia to align with
mainstream facts, it might lose the very
audience that currently supports it. And
here's the delicate balance.
Being a credible encyclopedia for
general audiences may be at odds with
being a haven for those who want an
encyclopedia that validates their
alternative viewpoints.
Musk might genuinely believe those
alternative viewpoints are the truth,
and if so, he may see no need to change
course.
One thing's for sure, AI technology is
improving rapidly.
Future versions of Grock might be better
at discerning fact from fiction, perhaps
incorporating real-time data validation
or community fact checks, similar to how
community notes function on X. These
technologies could potentially make
Grokipedia more accurate. But there's a
bigger question looming.
Groipedia is one of the first
high-profile attempts at an AI written
encyclopedia, but it won't be the last.
We may see others emerge, some perhaps
from different political or cultural
perspectives.
The real battle isn't just Wikipedia
versus Groipedia.
It's whether our shared reality
fragments into sealed information
ecosystems, each optimized for
engagement rather than accuracy.
In a polarized society, tools like
Growipedia can either bridge
understanding by improving knowledge
access or deepen divides by offering
different facts to different people.
Which way it goes depends on how users
respond and what XAI does next. The
bottom line, Grokipedia is a fascinating
experiment at the intersection of
artificial intelligence, information,
and ideology.
It represents Elon Musk's conviction
that the world's go-to knowledge source
needed a reboot, one that only
cuttingedge AI and a fearless approach
to challenging establishment narratives
could provide.
On paper, the idea of an always updated,
super accurate encyclopedia powered by
AI sounds almost utopian.
Who wouldn't want that? But in practice,
Groipedia's early months have exposed
the difficulties of achieving that
ideal.
Good intentions to fight misinformation
can backfire if the execution lacks
rigor.
And replacing human editors with AI
doesn't automatically eliminate bias. It
just obscures where the bias comes from.
Right now, Grokipedia is received with
cautious interest by some and deep
skepticism by others.
Most average users are taking a wait
andsee approach. They haven't abandoned
Wikipedia, but they're aware an
alternative exists.
Groipedia's supporters see it as a
breakthrough against censorship and
group think.
Its critics warn it could become a
compendium of exactly the misinformation
it vowed to combat.
Here's what's certain. The truth
seeeking mission that Groipedia espouses
is one we can all agree on. Nobody wants
to be misled. We all want reliable
information. Whether Grokipedia becomes
a trusted guide or just a footnote in
internet history will depend on how it
addresses these criticisms, earns public
trust, and navigates the complex
landscape of knowledge in the digital
age. The pursuit of truth in the
information era is a journey. Groedia
has boldly, if bumpily, joined that
journey.
Only time will tell if this AIdriven
encyclopedia can actually help light the
way or if it'll just add more confusion
to an already murky landscape.
If you found this deep dive helpful, let
me know in the comments what you think
about Grokipedia.
Are you willing to try it out or does
the controversy make you skeptical? And
if you want to stay updated on AI news
and how it's changing our world, make
sure to subscribe.