A new study reveals a troubling undercurrent within Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopedia, Grokipedia: a reliance on sources widely considered “questionable” and even “problematic.” Researchers at Cornell Tech discovered a pattern of citations that casts serious doubt on the platform’s reliability as a source of accurate information.
Launched as a direct competitor to Wikipedia, Grokipedia was positioned as an alternative free from the alleged ideological biases that Musk and others on the American right have repeatedly accused its human-authored counterpart of harboring. However, the reality appears starkly different, with guardrails against unreliable sources seemingly absent.
The research team analyzed hundreds of thousands of Grokipedia articles, uncovering a significant trend: a disproportionate number of citations to outlets known for misinformation and extremist viewpoints. This was particularly pronounced when examining articles related to political figures and contentious issues.
One particularly alarming example cited in the report is Grokipedia’s entry on the “Clinton body count” – a debunked conspiracy theory. The article prominently features InfoWars, a far-right website infamous for spreading false narratives. This is not an isolated incident.
Grokipedia’s sourcing extends to a range of questionable domains, including right-wing media from the US and India, state-sponsored media from China and Iran, and websites promoting anti-immigration, antisemitic, and anti-Muslim sentiments. Even portals dedicated to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories find a place within its citations.
Critically, Grokipedia presents these sources without any indication of their potential unreliability, leaving readers vulnerable to misinformation. The study also found instances of verbatim text copied directly from Wikipedia, the very platform it aims to surpass.
Articles on Grokipedia, when not directly attributed to Wikipedia, are 3.2 times more likely to cite sources deemed “generally unreliable” by the English Wikipedia community. Furthermore, they are a staggering 13 times more likely to include sources that have been explicitly “blacklisted” and blocked by Wikipedia itself.
Requests for comment sent to xAI were met with an automated response: “Legacy Media Lies.” This curt dismissal underscores a broader pattern of distrust towards traditional media outlets exhibited by Musk, who has previously accused Wikipedia of being “Wokepedia” and urged his followers to cease donations.
Musk recently announced plans to rebrand Grokipedia as “Encyclopedia Galactica,” a grandiose vision he admits is “a long way” from being realized. He invited users to join xAI in building what he describes as a “sci-fi version of the Library of Alexandria.”
Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, has refuted claims of left-wing bias, acknowledging areas for improvement but emphasizing the platform’s commitment to neutrality. He highlights the fundamental difference between the two encyclopedias: Wikipedia’s open, community-driven process versus Grokipedia’s reliance on opaque, AI-generated content.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia, stresses that its rigorous documentation and public review process are essential for maintaining trustworthiness. Unlike Grokipedia, no single entity controls the narrative, ensuring a more balanced and reliable source of information for a global audience.
