Hassan Khan
Elon Musk has officially unveiled Grokipedia, an online encyclopedia developed by his AI company xAI. It went live as version 0.1 and already hosts around 885,000 articles far fewer than Wikimedia Foundation’s Wikipedia English edition, which lists more than 7 million entries.
Musk described Grokipedia’s mission as: “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” He characterised Wikipedia as politically skewed and said his new project would “purge out the propaganda.”
How it works and what’s different
The site features a minimalist design just a search bar on a dark background, described by users as “version v0.1”. The content, unlike Wikipedia’s volunteer-written articles, appears to be generated or heavily edited by AI (specifically the chatbot Grok created by xAI) or curated via that model.
Some articles on Grokipedia seem to closely mirror or even duplicate Wikipedia content under the same open-license rules. For example, one article on the Chola Dynasty included only three sources, compared to 113 linked references on Wikipedia for the same topic.
Read More: Top 10 Most Searched Pakistani Personalities on Wikipedia in 2025
Another key difference: unlike Wikipedia’s open editing and citation-driven model, Grokipedia does not yet appear to allow open editing by the crowd in the same way, and its sourcing and transparency are still unclear.
The numbers in context
-
Grokipedia at launch: ~ 885,000 articles.
-
Wikipedia English edition: > 7 million articles at the same time.
-
Grokipedia version: 0.1 early beta Musk has said version 1.0 will be “10× better.”
Why this matters
For years, Wikipedia has been a key source of licensed content and training data for AI systems. The model behind Grokipedia itself with AI writing or editing encyclopedia-type entries raises significant questions. The project reflects an intersection of AI, knowledge curation, platform ownership and ideological claims. The Wikimedia Foundation warned that even Grokipedia “needs Wikipedia to exist” because the volunteer-written encyclopedia remains the bulk underlying many AI systems.
From a broader perspective, launching an alternative to Wikipedia opens a debate about trust, bias, editorial standards and how we build and share knowledge online in an AI-driven era. Some scholars say that trying to replace Wikipedia is a massive uphill challenge given Wikipedia’s decades-long network effect of editors, users and integrations.
Reactions and concerns
Critics are already pointing out that Grokipedia may inherit weaknesses of AI-generated content: errors, omissions, bias, lack of transparency. One professor described the idea of an AI-written encyclopedia as “absurd” since large language models aren’t built to weigh facts or handle nuanced editorial judgment.
Read More: Wikipedia Suspends AI Content Test Due to Editor Backlash
The Wikimedia Foundation emphasized Wikipedia’s strengths: transparent policies, volunteer oversight, continuous improvement and its nonprofit status. They stressed that Wikipedia is built by humans with the aim of neutrality not pushing a particular point of view.
What to watch
-
Will Grokipedia scale up its article count, and how quickly, compared to Wikipedia’s millions?
-
How will Grokipedia manage sourcing, edits, user contributions and dispute resolution compared to the established Wikipedia model?
-
How will the ideological claims around “bias” and “propaganda” play out in practice will Grokipedia simply shift the bias in another direction?
-
What role will Grokipedia play in AI training or in platforms that rely on encyclopedia-style data?
-
How will users, researchers and institutions treat Grokipedia vs. Wikipedia in terms of trust and citation?
Conclusion
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is an ambitious and provocative leap into the world of shared knowledge. With its ~885,000-article launch, it is still a fraction of Wikipedia’s scale but its founder’s aim is clear: build a “truth-centric” encyclopedia free of what he deems bias. Whether it succeeds depends not just on article count, but on transparency, accuracy, editorial culture and trust. As the platform evolves, our collective understanding of how we compile and rely upon knowledge online may well shift.
