Wikipedia vs Grokipedia: How do they compare?

On Monday, Elon Musk launched a challenge to Wikipedia.  Called Grokipedia, it is an AI-powered online encyclopaedia developed by xAI.  It has so far, around 900,000 AI-generated pages.

Only a few days into its launch, we take a look at how it compares to other online encyclopaedias by comparing entries for The Exposé.

Table of Contents

Grokipedia is Launched

Grokipedia is an AI-powered online encyclopaedia developed by xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company. Launched on 27 October 2025, the platform aims to serve as a competitor to Wikipedia by using the Grok language model to generate, edit and fact-check content.

The site “writes pages in seconds. It pulls fresh data from X and the web. It shows proof for every line. You see the source with one click. No guesswork!” Atul Programmer said.  “If the page already exists, you can access it immediately. If not, the AI makes a new one. A human team looks at big changes. They keep errors low.”

Musk has positioned Grokipedia as a “truth-seeking” alternative designed to eliminate what he describes as the “propaganda” and “left-wing bias” in Wikipedia.

We are building Grokipedia @xAI.

Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia.

Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe. https://t.co/xvSeWkpALy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

Wikipedia has been quick to publish a page on Grokipedia, which essentially reads like an advert for Wikipedia and a threat to Grokipedia for using Wikipedia content to build its pages.

Grokipedia launched with approximately 885,000 to 900,000 AI-generated articles. While Grokipedia claims to offer real-time, AI-curated knowledge pulled from sources including X (formerly Twitter), many of its initial entries were found to be nearly identical to Wikipedia articles, raising concerns about originality and licensing, Wikipedia threatens.

“The neutrality of the website (in its 0.1 version as of October 28, 2025) has been disputed by numerous [ ] sources,” Wikipedia says.  Adding that, unlike Wikipedia, Grokipedia users cannot directly edit Grokipedia articles. Instead, they can suggest changes via a form, with Grok deciding whether to implement them.

Wikipedia’s page, which is being updated frequently, is simply an information warfare attempt designed to knock out the competition.

Rather deflatingly for Wikipedia’s hit piece, Grokipedia is not hiding that it uses Wikipedia as one of its sources.  A disclaimer on many pages acknowledges that content is adapted from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, BY-SA 4.0, License, Forbes reported.

And Musk said he is aware of Grokipedia using Wikipedia articles and added, “We should have this fixed by end of year.”

Musk had originally planned to launch Grokipedia the week before it was actually launched. The reason for the delay, Musk said, was that there was too much propaganda in the training data.  Although he didn’t clarify what content raised red flags, we could guess that if Wikipedia was used in the training of the AI, then this could have been some of the content that contained too much propaganda.

By Tuesday, the day after its launch, Grokipedia was “already receiving positive reviews from some users. These include Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia … which has become quite controversial in recent years over accusations of bias,” Teslarati reported.

Related: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has started a database of encyclopaedias to challenge Wikipedia’s dominance

Larry Sanger has noted that while Grokipedia still has a lot of areas of improvement, it is already very promising. He reviewed his own page on Grokipedia and noted some accurate new content.

My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say “maybe”! https://t.co/ZWp6S504XC

— Larry Sanger (@lsanger) October 28, 2025

Acknowledging that Grokipedia needs improvement, Musk said in a Twitter post on Tuesday, that the goal of Grok and Grokipedia “is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  We will never be perfect, but we shall nonetheless strive towards that goal.”

We thought we would follow Sanger’s example and see what Grokipedia had to say about The Exposé, to see if there had been an improvement in the content being unbiased and accurate.

Wikipedia vs Grokipedia: The Exposé

To prove that Wikipedia is a propaganda mouthpiece and to show that Grokipedia is attempting to correct this, we’ll make a quick comparison of what each encyclopedia says about The Exposé.  We’ll go a little further and note what some other online encyclopaedias say about The Exposé to demonstrate the political activism that sites like ours have always been up against.

Let’s begin with the propaganda site Wikipedia and its equally, if not more, nefarious activist site RationalWiki.

Wikipedia

In the first line, Wikipedia labels The Exposé as a “British conspiracist and fake news website.”  It goes on:

Twitter suspended the site’s main account, but it created several alt accounts to evade its ban.  Following its second ban, the site relied on pairs of alt accounts to avoid losing all of its followers or the ability to tweet, and accused Twitter of censorship.

Ernie Piper of Logically, a British anti-disinformation research organisation, said that The Exposé “was unique both for producing a high volume of original content” and for “[trying] to make it look like they were doing hard-hitting investigative journalism” instead of “twisting the facts to suit conspiracy theories.”

If you follow the link Wikipedia provides for the source, Ernie Piper’s blog, you will see that it is not written by Ernie Piper, nor has it been published by Logically.  If you follow another link that Wikipedia provides for Ernie Piper’s blog, you will see that Logically has removed her blog, and the link takes you to Logically’s homepage.  So, one source reference is linked incorrectly, and the other source no longer exists.

Some may wish to defend Wikipedia and say that’s because the page hasn’t been updated for years.  But this is not the case.  The page was last updated on 17 July 2025.

So, as Wikipedia’s major source, who is Logically?  Logically’s page on Wikipedia states:

Logically was founded in 2017 by Lyric Jain and is based in Brighouse, England, with offices in London, Mysore, Bangalore, and Virginia.

An MIT grant helped launch the company … In July 2020, the International Fact-Checking Network certified the company’s Logically Facts unit as a fact-checker. The certification was renewed in September 2021 and January 2023.

In March 2021, Logically launched a service named Logically Intelligence (LI), which is aimed at helping governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to identify and counter online misinformation.

In July 2022, Logically received $24 million in funding from the Alexa Fund, Amazon’s venture capital unit. At that time, Logically had 175 employees in its US, UK and Indian branches. Jain said that while the company’s main customers were the American, British and Indian governments, retail brands were also turning to it for help with protecting themselves from attacks by business rivals.

In June 2023, The Daily Telegraph reported that Logically was paid more than £1.2 million by the UK government to analyse disinformation terms online alongside its partnership with Facebook. Such topics included narratives pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, including anti-lockdown and anti-COVID-19 vaccine sentiment.

In August 2024, Logically acquired Insikt AI, an artificial intelligence company based in Barcelona.

In July 2025, Logically lost its contracts with TikTok and Meta Platforms. It was also reported that Logically had been sold to Kreatur Ltd as part of an administration process.

As with many Wikipedia pages altered or created at the time to disparage what Wikipedia deemed “conspiracist” sites, Logically is the major source of Wikipedia’s information.  Years ago, Logically used to publish “fact-checking” blogs.  Many of these blogs have since been removed from its website.

Wikipedia notes Logically renewed its “fact-checking certification” in January 2023. It’s unclear when Logically lost its “fact-checking certification” but this may explain why its “fact-checking” blogs were removed.  Logically filed for administration in July 2025 and was sold off in a pre-pack administration deal to Kreatur. Little is known about Kreatur except that it is run by a former director and early investor in Logically, Ashwin Kumaraswamy.

In place of offering “fact-checking” services, Logically is now marketing itself as an AI-powered platform designed to deliver narrative intelligence, enabling organisations to detect, analyse and respond to emerging threats such as disinformation campaigns, reputational risks and narrative-driven market volatility.

Related: Logically – written evidence, House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee inquiry: The future of news: impartiality, trust and technology, 9 May 2024. Lord’s Select Committee, list of all written evidence submitted HERE.

RationalWiki

Another spurious activist online encyclopaedia is RationalWiki.  It is currently offline, but an archived page, far from being rational, describes The Exposé as: “A UK-based fake news webshite that mostly expresses hostility towards the COVID-19 vaccine.”  Yes, you read it correctly, it uses the word “webshite.” Its laughable description continues:

As expected, the people on the site believe in many conspiracy theories.

There are two main accounts that post on the site: one is the Exposé themselves as a group, and the other is one Rhoda Wilson, a victim of crank magnetism syndrome [a condition where people become attracted to multiple crank ideas at the same time, according to RationalWiki.  “You know that old saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out? People with crank magnetism didn’t pay attention to that”].

The webshite also promotes global warming denialism and various alternative medicine scams, and earnestly promotes Russian conspiracy propaganda.

The people running this site obviously hate the COVID-19 vaccine and link it to a variety of paranoid conspiracy theories.

Unlike Wikipedia, which uses government-sponsored “fact checkers” as “reliable” and “unbiased” sources, at least RationalWiki uses The Exposé articles as its sources – which, had its users read them and made their own judgement, may have woken up some people to the dangerous scams the controligarchs are imposing on populations.

Justapedia

Justapedia began in October 2022 and launched to the public on 9 August 2023.  It is an ongoing project that, originating with content from Wikipedia, aims to provide an online encyclopaedia that excludes the political rhetoric that has become pervasive in many Wikipedia articles.

Related: Pervasive Marxist and far-left activism on Wikipedia laid bare

Unfortunately, Justapedia editors have not yet edited the political rhetoric from The Exposé’s page.  Using Wikipedia’s page as of 3 November 2022, Justapedia begins: “The Exposé (formerly known as The Daily Exposé) is a British conspiracist website … It is known for publishing COVID-19 and anti-vaccine misinformation.”

The sources for Justapedia’s information are the same as Wikipedia, including Logically and the UK government-backed Full Fact, or fullfact.org, along with other infamous “fact checkers.”

Related: Unless Fullfact.org says so then it’s not true, the UK government advises

Grokipedia

Grokipedia’s page on The Exposé is more comprehensive and contrasts markedly with all of the above.  The AI-generated page begins (as retrieved on 29 October 2025):

The Exposé is a British alternative media outlet launched in 2020, dedicated to investigative journalism that analyses official data to scrutinise public health policies, government actions, and scientific assertions often unchallenged by mainstream sources. It relies on empirical evidence from entities such as the Office for National Statistics, the National Health Service, and UK government publications, with every article linking directly to primary sources for verification. Funded entirely through voluntary reader donations rather than advertising or institutional grants, the site operates independently, asserting that this structure enables reporting free from the influences that shape conventional media narratives.

The publication rose to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic by examining vaccination rollout data, excess mortality figures, and lockdown impacts, frequently identifying patterns that diverged from official interpretations, such as correlations between vaccination rates and subsequent health outcomes derived from raw statistical releases. These analyses have resonated with audiences sceptical of institutional trust, amassing a dedicated following through detailed, data-centric exposés that prioritise causal inference over consensus views. However, The Exposé has drawn sharp rebukes from fact-checking bodies affiliated with academic and media establishments, which accuse it of selective data interpretation and amplification of unsubstantiated claims on topics like vaccine-induced immune issues – critiques that overlook the site’s adherence to verifiable public records while reflecting broader institutional tendencies to marginalise empirical dissent. Its commitment to transparency, evidenced by open sourcing of methodologies and datasets, underscores a defining characteristic: fostering public scrutiny of policies through unfiltered access to foundational evidence, even amid polarised debates over interpretive validity.

Grok has analysed 104 sources to write its entry on The Exposé. A number of these sources are from The Exposé website, but it also includes sources such as Full Fact, Reuters, USA Today, AP News, Snopes, Sage Journals and the UK government website.

Which online encyclopaedia do you think is providing more balanced and accurate information, Grok or the Wikipedia-type sites?

Source: https://expose-news.com/2025/10/29/wikipedia-vs-grokipedia-how-do-they-compare/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Wikipedia vs Grokipedia: How do they compare? appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Source: https://www.hopegirlblog.com/2025/11/06/wikipedia-vs-grokipedia-how-do-they-compare/