An example: the classical liberal writer Douglas Murray is one of the many targets on Wikipedia of ludicrous "far right" style categorizations; nevertheless its correct to attempt to draw out his own alignments and biases especially where he writes provocatively in areas with cultural tensions.
Grokipedia seems to smooth over those tensions almost in denial while Wikipedia stirs them up via exaggeration. I don't think either are helpful or honest.
Reflections on Trusting Trust is mentioned in Ken Thompson's page but when I searched for it he wasn't part of the results.
Same story for Twitter
If he gets a $1T pay package, cost centers for the larger goal are rounding errors
The entry premise for wikipedia is that "it's a discussion" is a valid meta state for an article. Do you think that entry state is a valid condition for a machine generated encyclopedia where its guiding principle is "to adjust for systematic left bias in the world view" ? (my words)
clearly, one engages with the world as it aligns to ones world view. To be continually at odds with reality as you perceive it is both tiring and ultimately unsatisfying. Grok users seek a truth grounded in confidence grok is right, and it's founder is right, and the people who seek truth elsewhere are wrong and ungrokly and stupid and dull.
Fnord!
That they attack Wikipedia because it’s somehow fake is proof enough that Grokipedia is gonna become a fascist cesspool.
Just... go easy on all those labels you spew out so easily. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, as it stands now those labels seem more like a mirror.
And stop trying to frame this as just open mindedness, this is not the case. MAGA and far right billionaires are not the open minded ones.
You using terms like 'nazi' and 'far right extremist' so easily to indicate those who you happen to dislike tells me you need to either grow up or need to touch grass, for real. Drop that applePhone and go outside, meet some people. Meet some of those you would call nazis and right wing extremists as well just like they meet people like you all the time.
Grow up.
> Beat Happening was an American indie pop band formed in Olympia, Washington, in 1982 by vocalist and guitarist Calvin Johnson, guitarist Heather Lewis, and drummer Bret Lunsford.
Then I though, hey let's see what wikipedia says, here it is:
> Beat Happening was an American indie pop band formed in Olympia, Washington in 1982. Calvin Johnson, Heather Lewis, and Bret Lunsford were the band's continual members.
I came away less impressed- grokipedia's opening paragraph reads to me like a very minor rephrase. I assume wikipedia is in the training data here and being spat back out?
In fact going back to the garbled image link:
> 
Even this seems to be a reference to the wilipedia image at the top of the article titled:
> File:Beat Happening (1988 Rough Trade publicity photo).jpg
What a collosal waste of resources? Is anyone under the impression that this kind of "rephrased and lesss acurate wikipedia" is going to be helpful?
Does anyone know why replies are disabled in that other submission?
I guess people can choose their truth now? I suppose the US Government could require grokipedia to be chosen over wikipedia for use in schools?
I mean I guess I'll check it out for the lols but I don't see myself actually using it.
(source Wikipedia)
Wikipedia is a collaborative, multilingual online encyclopedia consisting of freely editable articles written and maintained primarily by volunteers worldwide, utilizing wiki software to enable open contributions under free content licenses. Launched on January 15, 2001, by American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger as a wiki-based complement to the slower-paced expert-reviewed Nupedia project, it rapidly expanded due to its accessible editing model.[1][2] Since 2003, Wikipedia has been hosted and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides technical infrastructure and promotes free knowledge dissemination.[3] As of October 2025, Wikipedia encompasses over 65 million articles across 357 language editions, making it one of the largest reference works ever compiled, with the English edition alone surpassing 7 million entries.[4] Renowned for its unprecedented scale, accessibility, and role in democratizing information, Wikipedia has nonetheless encountered persistent criticisms regarding factual reliability, susceptibility to vandalism and hoaxes, and systemic ideological biases—particularly a left-leaning slant in coverage of political figures and topics, as evidenced by computational analyses associating right-of-center entities with more negative sentiment and acknowledged by co-founder Sanger who has described the platform as captured by ideologically driven editors.
(source Grokipedia)
Overall I think I'd read the Wikipedia one on the whole.
I also note that - in theory, the purpose of wikipedia is to serve it's users. If I want to know, the example outlined in the blog post, where was George W. Bush born, I can find the answer in Wikipedia. Certainly there are places where it optimizes for it's editors but for the most part, the vastness of a website with 7 million articles implies it is for the consumers.
Uberpedia seems much more intended for the editors. I don't want to consume information, I just want to feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people who agree with me.
But Grokipedia doesn't sound like Curtis is describing at all, he explicitly calls out that forks (like conservipedia) don't solve these "issues".