Grokipedia.com version 0.1 is now live. Efforts to replace wikipedia with a less biased root source for the world.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://grokipedia.com/page/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

For example, the above.

Whatever people think about Elon, underestimating him is never a good idea.

Yup. "Protecting" articles is basically stopping everyone bar the chosen few from editing them.

NPOV is a lie.

I was wrong to doubt it, apologies. Things are just going swimmingly: www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/03/grokipedia-academics-assess-elon-musk-ai-powered-encyclopedia

as the Guardian does not have an agenda at all....

I recently listened to The Joe Rogan Experience podcast with Elon Musk. The man says a lot of things I disagree with but I was surprised that I agreed with a lot he said! No one is always wrong.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 29/10/2025 00:44

See you lose any argument by using the term “cuck”.

Well, by definition, women cannot be cuckolds; no more than men can become women.

I think it's a pox on both their houses, both seem biased. Well, WP most definitely is and I have personal knowledge that it's inaccurate. About 20 years ago, I emailed with some corrections for a family tree, for the founders and descendants of a well known company.

They had a couple of names wrong, one person in the wrong generation and a couple of names mis-spelled, at least one captioned photo had the wrong name.

One of my aunts and her boyfriend had researched it and had all their data from original sources, including birth and death certificates. Yup, my maternal grandmother's line.

I had a reply that I didn't know what I was talking about, even though I was sitting looking at the correct family tree and scanned photos. A further email was simply ignored.

Less biased? Are you having a laugh @SingleSexSpacesInSchools?

It has a different bias, it is not less biased.

Wikipedia seems to be getting much worse, and to be a lot less reliable than I'd considered it in the past. But if I wanted an improved and less-biased version, I somehow don't think Elon Musk would have been my first port of call!

I'm sure the guardian has an agenda. It doesn't change that people have found this new propaganda toy of the white supremacist is introducing factual errors. Some of which don't have an immediate political angle but it is most unfortunate (I.e. completely predictable) that those which do favour those champions of freedom like nice uncle Vladimir.

Yaaaaawwwnnnn.

bingo card full

The problem with Wikipedia is that it says it’s democratic and consensus based. But. It’s actually controlled by a very very small number of activist editors.

for example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridul_Wadhwa

versus:
https://grokipedia.com/page/Mridul_Wadhwa

and Wikipedia has had years and thousands of man hours to make that article

Grokipedia is on version 0.1

it will get better. A lot.

I genuinely believe in the goals Elon has laid out about the future of human civilisation, fundamental
knowledge, electric cars, multi planetary species strategies, and that AI should be open and serving of humanity - not for profit (that’s why he took open AI to court having been a founding investor).

oh and free speach hence buying Twitter.

I relate to the guy a lot. He says some things I don’t like but isn’t that how things used to be? We could agree on some things and not others?

Delightful sarcasm

Elon 'cares' in the same way that Donald Trump 'has friends'.

Try not distorting and manipulating the facts. JK replies to MRAs/TRAs that harass her. They harass her first. If they don't like their abuse of her being made public, they shouldn't do it. You are saying the victim is wrong for calling it out.

By recommending women kick/punch in the balls a male who is harassing them, GL merely advocated self defence that every good self defence class advocates.

You only have to read Grokipedia’s fawning entry on Donald Trump to recognise where its bias lies.

You imply that "left-leaning" is synonymous with "not racist" which is just wishful thinking.

Commenting now on other issues raised by PP.

IMHO Wikipedia "Talk Pages" are invaluable and will be a huge loss if and when WP dies. They are not only very revealing of the way WP is manipulated by authoritarian political activists and Editors with vested interests but they often provide interesting alternative takes and references that never make it into the Article.

Grokipedia is more "inclusive" than Wikipedia.

Less than 15% of WP Editors are women but even that is an over-estimate as so many of the "women" WP Editors are actually men, certainly all the "women" who have an iron grip on all the articles covering Feminism and Women's Rights.

For example, "Sceptre", variously identifying as a "lesbian transperson" and "non-binary dyke" from Leeds with a Masters in Mathematics, who was responsible for altering a WP article's title from the more neutral "Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" to "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom" and editing the article to reflect this propaganda.

This was eventually changed following outrage in the national and international press. This is an archived copy of the offending article:

archive.ph/JcvBS

IMHO this is also a good example of the moral depravity of some experienced, influential WP Editors.

WP is also notoriously systemically misogynistic and sexist, as evidenced by the difficulty getting articles about notable women approved and the speed with which they are subsequently deleted.

Technically, Wikipedia is a nightmare to edit and the rules are extremely hard to navigate. The misogynistic attitudes of the men involved with feminism and women's rights articles also make WP an unfriendly place for any woman who can spare the time and energy and has the skills to contribute.

I have used Grok to speed up producing information in support the above claims. If anyone wishes to dispute its accuracy, feel free:

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ%3D%3D_20bac3ec-5f84-40a7-ac1a-ab194201ab3e

As far as Grokipedia is concerned, it is very easy to submit corrections to articles but too soon to know how effective this system is and how resistant to vandalisation.

Examples with proof please not sweeping statements.

You could try reading it yourself? It’s basically the entire entry. One glaring example is the rape civil suit with E. Jean Carroll: not mentioned. Another: January 6 is reimagined as a peaceful day out that Trump had nothing to do with.

The onus is on you making the accusations, not me. thats how it works.

I could not agree more, with everything you say - you clearly have an in depth knowledge of how wikipedia works which I am certain 99.9% of people who know what wikipedia is - do not have.

Wikipedia is categorically not - you go to an article you know something about, you add an important, true detail, the article as a whole gets better and humanity benefits.

In fact, as you say, powerful cliques of editors, with very clear political axes to grind, are literally trying to change the landscape of the discussion by editing articles in a biased activist manner. They are trying to change the Overton window, through activist editing of the top search engine result of almost any topic in the world.

And it is WORKING. Hence, Grokipedia. Good news.

Ive given you a few examples, and you know where the source is. You started this thread about the source. All you need to do is type ‘Donald Trump’.

again. the onus is on you to give specific examples, quote them and show why they are wrong or biased depending on your opinion. Not on me to go find them for you.

Ick. Elon.

It's "somewhat challenging" to provide a quote of content that isn't there (civil case against E. Jean Carroll) but should be.

I do hope the people asserting that Wikipedia is unbiased took the time to read the link I posted. I would be very interested to hear their thoughts.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say anyone now posting in this thread about WP's impartiality and lack of bias without explicitly referring to the content I posted and explaining why they do not think it undermines their position has burned any possibility of their posts being taken credibly.