A new online encyclopedia called Grokipedia went live Monday with more than 885,000 entries. Elon Musk positioned the project as an open source alternative to Wikipedia after frustrations with its content.
Grokipedia, built by xAI and powered by the Grok language model, was presented as an attempt to address issues with Wikipedia that have long been seen by its critics as being ‘woke’ and carrying ideological slants. The new Grokipedia site opened in an early version labeled 0.1 and briefly suffered outages on launch day as traffic surged, but has since been available.
Grokipedia’s homepage and numerous public statements made on X indicate the project will be open source and that people are free to use material released under attribution licenses. Advocates say that an open source encyclopedia could expand the ways researchers and the public use the material, and could allow developers to build tools that make the information easier to access and verify.
Grokipedia’s rapid growth to hundreds of thousands of articles has drawn scrutiny as well as praise. Early analysis shows a substantial number of entries were derived from existing Wikipedia content, sometimes closely following Wikipedia text while attributing material under Creative Commons rules. Critics warn that copying existing entries does not eliminate the need for transparent sourcing and community review.
Supporters of the new site say an AI assisted, open source repository could produce a more balanced presentation of contested topics by offering alternative summaries and by surfacing material that they say is underrepresented on Wikipedia. Skeptics counter that AI generated content must be paired with strong editorial safeguards or it may propagate errors or bias in different forms. Coverage from major outlets since launch shows both enthusiasm for the concept and concern about accuracy.
Grokipedia, under the direction of Elon Musk, is set to expand and improve as the platform moves beyond its initial release. Observers say the coming months will test whether the site can build the editorial transparency and community involvement that long made Wikipedia resilient.
