Elon Musk has just launched Grokipedia, an encyclopedia created by artificial intelligence aimed at correcting what he perceives as biases in Wikipedia. However, this “anti-woke” alternative is already causing quite a stir. It sanitizes certain entries, highlights controversial figures, and severely lacks transparency. Beneath the grand promises lies a tool that raises concerns. Can we really trust it?
Grokipedia Claims to Aim for Neutrality, but Reinforces Other Biases
On paper, the ambition is clear: to create an encyclopedia free from the “leftist biases” that Musk attributes to Wikipedia. To achieve this, he relies on his AI, Grok, which is supposed to provide a more balanced truth.
However, as soon as one explores the first pages, something feels off. Donald Trump, J.K. Rowling, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are portrayed very favorably. The site downplays Trump’s legal troubles, softens Rowling’s transphobic remarks, and ignores Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine stance.
In other words, Grokipedia does not eliminate biases; it merely inverts them. Musk and his team impose their viewpoint, far from the claimed neutrality. The result: instead of restoring balance, the tool replaces one perspective with another.
A Visual Copy of Wikipedia, Without Real Innovation
Another striking point: the interface of Grokipedia resembles Wikipedia quite closely. It has the same structure and organization, with only the dark color scheme differing. Some pages even replicate entire paragraphs from the original site.
A discreet note indicates, “content adapted from Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.” This raises a simple question: why claim to create a radically different alternative while copying existing content?
Grokipedia seems to be re-packaging already available content to align with a specific ideological line. It’s more about recycling than innovation.
An AI That Decides Everything, Without Collective Oversight
Unlike Wikipedia, Grokipedia does not allow the public to edit articles. Only the AI Grok decides what gets published. Moreover, we know nothing about the criteria used. Who oversees it? Who can contest a piece of information?
Wikipedia operates with an active and transparent community. Every edit is visible and can be discussed. In contrast, Grokipedia locks content behind an AI controlled by Musk.
This lack of transparency hampers any independent verification. We have no idea where the information comes from or why it is presented in a certain way. As a result, trust quickly erodes.
For Users, There’s Not Much Added Value
Today, Grokipedia offers little to the general public. The content is still biased, sources are vague, and the methodology lacks clarity. Musk promises a much better version 1.0, but this version 0.1 disappoints.
In comparison, Wikipedia retains significant advantages: a wealth of content, process transparency, and openness to debate. Grokipedia imposes a singular vision, without the possibility for discussion or challenge.
In summary, Grokipedia could have been a step forward in the realm of encyclopedias. However, in its current state, it appears more as a political tool. An encyclopedia should not take sides; it must help everyone better understand the world. For now, it’s wiser to continue trusting Wikipedia.
