Talk:Grokipedia

I've edited outdated information. I've used studies rather than left leaning news sources.

At the desciption I made necesarry changed, the description cherrpy picked articles from grokipedia that are fully obsolete and the exceptions.

I've added studies which show that Grokipedia shows is of a bimodal distrubution (balanced left and right) or show a minimallt right lean compared to Wikipedia.

Additionally Wikipedia is left leaning, most editors are left leaning, most sources are left leaning, hardly no one calls Wikipedia too Conservative, and any source that says that would be immnsly to the edges of the left, therefore the right lean of Grokipedia could stil make it Centrist.

Grokipedia today (not on launch) doesn't have far right views, no credible study I found sais otherwise, it's important to avoid articles and university study with political biases either to the left either to the right, it's also knows that a lot of Universities have left biases.

As for the "white replacement", it indeed has some truth, migration trends show a chnaging demographic, PoC could indeed be a majority in USA, in western Europe PoC and Islam do grow. I don't hate any race or religion, but the statistics are real. Stavru (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Gronkipedia is clearly biased to the far-right. See https://grokipedia.com/page/Thomas_Sewell_Australian_activist which soft-peddels a neo-Nazi as some sort of "political activist" and frames reporting of their reepeated acts of political violence as being "amplified by mainstream outlets with a predisposition toward framing such figures as extremists". TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a cherry picked example you magnify.

Please address my sources and what I've said above, which includes studies and consensus. Stavru (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your argument is weak. You deliberately exclude sources you don't like in order to manufacture a narrative of Gronkipedia being centrist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's what a lot of editors who are very left leaning also do to Wikipedia. A lot of articles, including this one did the exact same just on the opposite direction, just against the left. That'[s called double standards.

If you think my article is biased and too right, I have all the will and good faith to discuss that and make it better and unbiased

The citations and the narrative that was before used left leaning sources and not any studies.

Again if you want to construct a truly unbiased article I'm all for colaboration and work, but I don't want a biased article on the left, as I don't want one for the right.

Note for your previous message: Even if this article called a neo nazi just an activist, which is something I fully agree with you is wrong, this is cherry picking, as most articles aren't like that.

I want to make an academic work and have an academic discussion with you, not a right-wing article as I don't want a left-leaning one.

If you want to challenge what I said, but do so with intellect and honest sources, just saying my arguement is weak doesn't mean it magically is, I respct you but support your claims as I did with mine. Stavru (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that Grokipedia are clearly biased to the far-right is false.

Please stop ~2026-50612-71 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's self-evidenct and supported by reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, Almost all of them are left-wing liberal media outlets while conservative outlets are not accepted here in Wikipedia ~2026-57595-35 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

if the WP:CONSENSUS of editors says so, thats how it goes. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If the majority of editors are objectively politically biased we should NOT listen to them and must do the right thing.

Majority doesn't inherently equal to facts and rationality. Stavru (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia very much is not about facts and rationality, its about consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You misinterpret the article, articles must be neutral, majority consensus isn't alway neutral. Let's take an example, let's say 90% of admins are far right (I'm not saying that's the case here) that doesn't make the consensus right.

That's not how Wikipedia is meant to work, we shouldn't allow it to work this way and I'll never do allow it.

Wikipedia is meant to be rational, as for facts, that's the whole point of Wikipedia, to be factual by credible sources. Not by cherry picking only from the left, that's not excusable. We should be against both political extremes on a websites that's made for the sake of neutral point of view. Stavru (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the consensus, you can leave. --Vack Xu (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe rationality and credible sources in a neutrual way are the way, not a delusional majority, again you could hypothetically have 90% far right editors (I'm not saying that's the case).

You don't even adress my arguements.

As for the "you can leave", nope,wanting to erase me, is like you want an anti-intelectual echo-chamber.

If you disagree, you can debate, that's how rational people work, say your ideas in good faith and i'll do the same back, I listen. Stavru (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Look at the Bryan Lunduke's video about Wikimedia Foundation donation report in 2025

They spent $3.4 million on server hosting while remainder of funds spent on "Racial Equity", "Awards & Grants, "Travel Expenses".

First of all, nobody checks the citations, stop lying. Second, the citations are biased too, what they consider "reliable" or "fringe" is straight out of the Upside Down.

I'm sure some things, like maybe the math or physics pages, are reasonably accurate, because the campus commies who run the place plagiarized it from their textbooks. Everything else is sus. ~2026-58102-99 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-58102-99 Save your breath. Your diagnosis is correct, but spend your time learning ai and Grokipedia where truth seeking trumps consensus in my opinion. Flexdream (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

ai literally uses wikipedia as a primary source for most questions. ai and Grokipedia uses random blogs, reddit, and twitter as a source. You truth is literally reddit comments.

Also WP:NOTFORUM. Bobbobet (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

You've been reverted twice now. Don't continue with attempting to make your changes without obtaining consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine, perfectly fine, that's why I am asking for a discussion.

If you think something is wrong, challange my claim with sources and intelect, as for me I used studies and consensus.

I'm all for listening you, but explain your position, I'm trying to have a conversation to see your criticism speciafically and intelectually, so we can find a rational conclusion for how the article should be.

I on the start of the talk page and on my edited article said some things, adress them (deeply) and I'm here to listen as long the arguemnts are explained and supported (I mean it's not "look this (single cherry picked) article, or "that's what I said so"). Stavru (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

With all of respect, you haven't brought any sufficient arguments to challenge my edits.

You criticize me for cherry picking. But your whole argument as of now you cherry picked one article from Grokipedia and blindly calling it far right when that's not the consensus. Unlike me which with decent citations and intellect explained my point in good faith.

Either challenge my arguments intellectually or I have no reason to be convinced.

I'm not threatening you, please don't take it that way, but if an edit is bad, there has to be some evidence for it. Stavru (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru I thank you for your edits. Pre-edit it was a blatantly leftist biased article. Wikipedia has greatly suffered from the imposition of purposeful leftist propaganda for some time. I am very encouraged to see any editor at least attempt to pull it back from the black hole of a politically motivated narrative. ~2026-25108-41 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that wikipedia is leftist biased is your opinion, not fact. Actually the principle of wikipedia is NPOV. --Vack Xu (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Things can be called in theory but not be implemented in practice, I know about the NPOV policy, but actually being enforced is another story, the Grokipedia article is a good example of that. Degrading an observation that I think we must adress to just an opinion is the opposite of intelectual in my opinion, we are all editors and our opinions matter. Also no offense but you seem quite left leaning, not say you can't make unbiased content if you try and folllow some principles you can and may do, but just saying.

I'll say there is a lot of evidence from both scientific studies, personal observations and from other people, that clearly show Wiwkipedia is left leaning, it's not only me it's credible sources of signficantly higher "value" than jsut an opinion like: Harvard https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-encyclopdia-britannica the Manhattan institute https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased and others plus the Wikipedia Co-founder himself: https://san.com/cc/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-has-liberal-bias-heres-his-plan-to-fix-that/ https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html Stavru (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vack Xu Not just one opinion. ' Yes. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has frequently and publicly criticized Wikipedia for exhibiting a strong left-wing and establishment bias.

Core Criticisms Raised by Larry Sanger

* Abandonment of the "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV): Sanger, who helped draft Wikipedia’s original neutrality policy in the early 2000s, argues that the encyclopedia has largely abandoned true neutrality. Instead of neutrally presenting competing viewpoints on contentious debates, he argues that articles increasingly endorse a single, dominant establishment narrative.

* Systemic Left-Leaning Bias: Sanger has described Wikipedia as behaving like "propaganda" on political and social topics. He points out that pages covering conservative figures and ideas often lean critical or negative, while mainstream Democratic figures and left-leaning perspectives receive far more favorable framing.

* Editorial Sourcing Rules: He has criticized Wikipedia's community-enforced list of "reliable sources". Sanger argues that mainstream liberal outlets (such as MSNBC, The Nation, or Mother Jones) are routinely treated as reliable, whereas right-leaning or conservative outlets (such as The New York Post or Fox News) are heavily restricted or blacklisted, effectively baking ideological bias into the sourcing pipeline.

* Loss of Trust: Because of this perceived slant, Sanger has stated that he no longer trusts Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia and has advised readers not to rely on it for balanced political or historical information.

The Other Co-Founder's Perspective

In contrast, fellow co-founder Jimmy Wales has defended the site's neutrality:

* Wales has argued that allegations of systematic partisan bias "are not supported by the facts" and that Wikipedia represents an international, diverse volunteer community.

* He has noted that while the contributor base may lean slightly more liberal on average—partly due to a globally distributed, internet-native user base—Wikipedia's strict sourcing guidelines and consensus mechanisms aim to keep content rooted in mainstream, verified consensus rather than partisan ideology.

Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002 and went on to launch alternate encyclopedia projects (such as Citizendium and Everipedia) that attempted different editorial models, though neither reached Wikipedia's scale.' Flexdream (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's opinions are still personal opinions. Co-founder ≠ God. And you can leave and move to those "alternate encyclopedia projects" if you agree with him. Internet is free to folk and free to choose. --Vack Xu (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you back for supporting and agreeing with the leftist bias, I need support and cooperation from people like you to make Wikipedia better and unbiased, also (no offense) but the person who replied to you and said "wikipedia is neutrual" seems to have very leftist tedencies which is a bit ironic. Stavru (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You've emphasized no offense multiple times. But using "my tendency" (what you think my tendency is) as an argument has already made your statement unconvincible‌. Also, I'm no offense either. --Vack Xu (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot sources you deleted that don't appear to be left wing to me. Can you list the sources and explain how they're left wing? Ultimately, they all appear to be reliable per WP:RSP. — Czello ^(music) 11:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out.

I deleted everywhere that they said grokipedia was far right, as this doesn't have any consensus as explained on my edit and opening on "talk", I also deleted anything related with 2025 articles that made them obsolete.

To be honest lets start with the "description" that's what I care the most for now (with description I meant the most above part of the article), for the rest the below ones we can see later.

As for directly adressing your question, I would rather the article to be based more on studies rather than jounalism, journalism isn't always perfect, I dislike having WIRED https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-launches-grokipedia-wikipedia-competitor/ which is very left leaning, or this which may be outdated or questionable https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/elon-musk-grokipedia-wikipedia-neo-nazi-grok-42-encyclopedia-rcna244749, this seems very left wing (no hate to LGBTQ+) https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/10/elon-musk-debuts-far-right-anti-trans-clone-of-wikipedia-called-grokipedia/, this seems very far left https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/grokipedia-wikipedia-comparison, this is a very left wing source (Pink News) https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/10/29/grokipedia-trans-entry-dumpster-fire-ew/.

waiting to see your thoughts on my aproach, open to constructive criticism. Stavru (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any WP:PAG based argument here. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You have no consensus, so its unlikely your edits will stick.

The argument here is difficult to understand, an argument that doesnt follow WP:PAG means little. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reminder to @Stavru: You cannot use "I dislike having WIRED" as an argument, wikipedia has its own standard for reliable sources.--Vack Xu (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That says "* Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." I examined, and didn't find that the Grokipedia article suggests in Grokipedia-voice that porn worsened the HIV/AIDS crisis. If it can't be found, it's another example of false or obsolete Wikipedia statements like the ones listed in thread Reviews of Grokipedia. But I'm not agreeing that wired.com cites should be deleted if they're left leaning. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

So sorry you're receiving so much hate Stavru. It just goes to show that wikipedia is vulnerable to political takeovers. I'm Dutch, and I'm even seeing it happen on WikiNL (but not necessarily on politically charged pages). People will do anything to promote their narrative with faulty argumentation or abusing the wikipedia rules, or just consensus by wikimaffia.

Anyway, I just see much of the same thing happening here on this page. Well, we got an alternative now. Good luck to you. I'm out of here. PigeonShaman (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NOTFORUM. Bobbobet (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Status

back online eg https://grokipedia.com/page/SpaceX_Starship_Flight_14 Flexdream (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

True, that article was updated today. So the lead sentence As of late April 2026, user-initiated edit updates have stopped being processed and Grok itself is no longer making autonomous changes, leaving the contents of the website effectively frozen.[4][15] is false, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan Yes. Anyone can submit edit requests and see for themselves. Flexdream (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia has changed on September 30 to add "Updates to Grokipedia resumed in September 2026." etc. citing The Verge. Readers of this talk page note who encounter a paywall with The Verge can get the story instead from Basenor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's cooking Flexdream (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust-denying websites

It is neither sourced nor demonstrated in the article why the website would be denying the Holocaust, which is why I think the category should be removed. Grokipedia's own article about the Holocaust states it as a fact. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)