When British historian Sir Richard Evans accessed Grokipedia, Elon Musk’s newly launched AI encyclopedia, he was shocked to find that nearly every detail about him was incorrect. As reported by The Guardian, the entry falsely claimed he had written expert witness reports in the David Irving libel trial, earned a doctorate under Theodore Zeldin, succeeded David Cannadine at Cambridge, and supervised theses on Bismarck’s social policy, none of which, he said, was true.

The blunders marked a chaotic debut for what Musk had described as humanity’s next great repository of knowledge, a compendium of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” generated through his Grok artificial intelligence model.

Upon launching Grokipedia, Musk boldly declared it “better than Wikipedia”, or as his followers mockingly call it, “Wokepedia”, arguing that the platform was free of left-wing bias. Supporters on X celebrated what they saw as the downfall of the internet’s long-dominant encyclopedia. “Elon just killed Wikipedia. Good riddance,” one post read.

Elon just killed Wikipedia.

Good riddance. pic.twitter.com/rczdf4T0h0

— C3 (@C_3C_3) October 27, 2025

But reality quickly caught up. Users discovered that Grokipedia had lifted large portions directly from Wikipedia, was riddled with factual mistakes, and appeared to amplify Musk’s right-wing political views, according to The Guardian.

Even as he promoted his creation online, Musk used his X account to warn of “civil war in Britain,” call for an alliance with far-right agitator Tommy Robinson, and claim that only the AfD party could “save Germany.”

Grand visions, earthly problems

Musk’s ambition for Grokipedia was nothing short of cosmic, as per the report. He mused about etching “the comprehensive collection of all knowledge” into a durable oxide and placing copies “in orbit, the moon, and Mars.”

Yet while Musk dreamed of preserving human knowledge among the stars, Evans found the encyclopedia’s problems to be much more down to earth. “Chatroom contributions are given equal status with serious academic work,” Evans told The Guardian. “AI just hoovers up everything.”

He also noted that Grokipedia’s article on Albert Speer repeated long-debunked lies spread by Hitler’s munitions minister, and that its entry on Eric Hobsbawm, whose biography Evans himself authored, contained multiple inaccuracies, including claims that Hobsbawm experienced hyperinflation in 1923 and served in the Royal Corps of Signals.

Related News

Musk announces Beta launch of Grokipedia, his AI rewrite of Wikipedia

A clash of knowledge cultures

For academics, Grokipedia’s failings reflect a deeper epistemological divide between Silicon Valley and scholarship. “We live in a moment where there is a growing belief that algorithmic aggregation is more trustworthy than human-to-human insight,” said David Larsson Heidenblad, deputy director of the Lund Center for the History of Knowledge in Sweden.

“The Silicon Valley mindset is very different from the traditional scholarly approach,” he explained. “Its knowledge culture is very iterative, where making mistakes is a feature, not a bug. By contrast, the academic world is about building trust over time.”

From China’s 15th-century Yongle scrolls to the Encyclopédie of Enlightenment France and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, each age has sought to catalog human knowledge. Grokipedia, the first AI-led effort, raises a new question: who controls the truth when artificial intelligences are trained, and potentially biased by powerful individuals?

“If it’s Musk doing it, then I am afraid of political manipulation,” warned Peter Burke, emeritus professor at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and author of A Social History of Knowledge. He told The Guardian the anonymity of encyclopedia entries gave them “an air of authority it shouldn’t have,” making subtle manipulation difficult to detect.

Experts question transparency and trust

Andrew Dudfield, head of AI at the UK fact-checking group Full Fact, voiced similar concerns. “We really have to consider whether an AI-generated encyclopedia, a facsimile of reality, run through a filter, is a better proposition than any of the previous things that we have,” he said.

“It doesn’t display the same transparency, but it is asking for the same trust. It is not clear how far the human hand is involved, how far it is AI-generated, and what content the AI was trained on. It is hard to place trust in something when you can’t see how those choices are made,” Dudfield stressed.

Musk’s decision to build Grokipedia was encouraged by allies such as David Sacks, Donald Trump’s tech advisor, who accused Wikipedia of being “hopelessly biased” and dominated by “an army of leftwing activists.”

Ironically, Musk once praised Wikipedia, writing on its 20th anniversary, “So glad you exist.” But by 2023, his tone had soured. He mocked the site as “corrupt.”

A copy with a political twist

Despite his claims of innovation, many of Grokipedia’s 885,000 articles were copied almost word-for-word from Wikipedia. Others diverged sharply, revealing a clear political tilt.

The site described Britain First as a “patriotic political party,” a portrayal welcomed by its leader, Paul Golding, but one that Wikipedia calls “neo-fascist” and a “hate group.”

Likewise, Grokipedia called the January 6 attack on the US Capitol a “riot” rather than an attempted coup and legitimized the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory as having “empirical underpinnings.” Its entry on Donald Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records downplayed his conflicts of interest and suggested political bias in his trial.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, responded coolly to Musk’s self-proclaimed replacement. “Unlike newer projects, Wikipedia’s strengths are clear,” a spokesperson said. “It has transparent policies, rigorous volunteer oversight, and a strong culture of continuous improvement.”

“Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written to inform billions of readers without promoting a particular point of view,” it added.