Grokipedia sourcing info from the internets biggest neo-Nazi forum, researchers say
Elon Musk’s recent venture, Grokipedia, has quickly garnered attention as a controversial alternative to Wikipedia, primarily due to its sourcing practices and editorial approach. A new analysis by two researchers from Cornell Tech has revealed that Grokipedia frequently cites sources that are widely recognized as unreliable or extremist, including neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront and far-right conspiracy outlets such as Infowars. The study, titled “What did Elon change? A comprehensive analysis of Grokipedia,” marks the first extensive examination of the site, which has grown to host over a million articles since its launch less than a month ago. The researchers found that Grokipedia’s articles are not only longer than their Wikipedia counterparts but also utilize a greater number of sources, many of which are deemed low-quality or outright biased.
The findings highlight a stark contrast between Grokipedia’s editorial practices and Wikipedia’s established guidelines, which emphasize neutrality and reliance on credible sources. Wikipedia operates under a set of community-driven principles designed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content. In contrast, Grokipedia appears to lack a transparent editorial process. Users cannot directly edit entries but can submit suggestions, which are filtered by Musk’s xAI team. While Musk has touted Grokipedia as a superior alternative to Wikipedia, critics are concerned that the platform’s foundation on questionable sources undermines its credibility. The analysis suggests that Grokipedia is particularly focused on rewriting politically charged articles, often diverging significantly from Wikipedia’s more balanced representations.
As Musk continues to promote Grokipedia as a rival to what he terms “Wokipedia,” the implications of its sourcing practices raise questions about the potential for misinformation and the spread of extremist views. The researchers argue that Grokipedia’s approach could foster a platform that prioritizes ideological alignment over factual accuracy, contrasting sharply with Wikipedia’s commitment to verifiable information. With Musk’s history of engaging with far-right rhetoric and reinstating controversial figures on social media, the launch of Grokipedia has sparked a broader conversation about the responsibilities of online platforms in curating content and combating misinformation. As the platform evolves, its impact on public discourse and the dissemination of knowledge remains to be seen.
Elon Musk’s anti-woke Wikipedia rival,
Grokipedia
, is pulling information from widely blacklisted sources and known neo-Nazi sites, according to two researchers.
The analysis, ”
What did Elon change? A comprehensive analysis of Grokipedia
,” was conducted by two Cornell Tech researchers and has yet to be peer reviewed. It’s the first attempt to comprehensively scrape the site’s entries which numbered more than 880,000 at the time. As of publishing, Grokipedia v0.2 hosts 1,016,241 articles.
SEE ALSO:
Grok generates sycophantic praise for Elon Musk after new update
They found that the website frequently cited blacklisted sources and sites deemed low-quality by academics, including Stormfront. Stormfront is considered the first major hate site on the Internet and the most popular forum for white nationalists, according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC)
. It was founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black in 1995, and long hosted white supremacist, neo-Nazi message boards.
In addition, researchers found Grokipedia cited far-right conspiracy peddler Infowars 34 times, and pulled from VDare, a white nationalist publication designated as as a
hate group by the SPLC
, 107 times. Similar entries on Wikipedia cited mainly mainstream news publications.
“We find that the elected official and controversial article subsets showed less similarity between their Wikipedia version and Grokipedia version than other pages,” the report reads. “The random subset illustrates that Grokipedia focused rewriting the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, with a bias towards biographies, politics, society, and history.”
Researchers also found that, on the whole, Grokipedia articles were “longer and more verbose” than Wikipedia articles, citing twice as many sources but with a higher share of unreliable citations.
It’s been less than a month since Musk launched the online encyclopedia, intended as competition to what the X CEO began calling “Wokipedia” or ”
Dickipedia
.” Musk has long criticized the nonprofit resource for having an alleged left wing bias. “Grokipedia.com version 0.1 is now live. Version 1.0 will be 10X better, but even at 0.1 it’s better than Wikipedia imo,” the billionaire wrote in an X post at the time of launch. Users quickly noticed, however, that Grokipedia was plagiarizing many of its entries directly from Wikipedia, with exceptions for its more political charged articles.
Grokipedia’s editorial process is not clearly outlined. Users don’t appear to be able to edit articles directly on the site, but can submit suggestions which the xAI team filters. It’s not apparant if the titular Grok chatbot is involved in the review system, although Musk has said it is
involved in fact-checking
. The chatbot has previously come under fire for
spewing hate speech
and praising the actions of Adolf Hitler. Musk himself has
reinstated white supremacist figures
on X and engaged in far-right talking points and
imagery
.
Conversely, Wikipedia’s content and citations practices are governed by
five community pillars
, which include an emphasis on primary sources and general neutrality. “All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person,” one pillar reads. Wikipedia also discourages the use of “websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist.” Infowars, for example, has been deemed a
deprecated source and blacklisted
by Wikipedia due to persistent spamming and its reputation for publishing fake news and conspiracy theories.
“The publicly determined, community-oriented rules that try to maintain Wikipedia as a comprehensive, reliable, human-generated source are not in application on Grokipedia,” report author Harold Triedman told
NBC News
.
