The New Chapter in Digital Knowledge

When Grokipedia went live on October 28, 2025, the post wasn’t made on a tech blog or a press wire. Elon Musk simply announced it on X with a line: “Version 0.1 is live. Version 1.0 will be 10X better, but even now it’s better than Wikipedia.”

For those following Musk’s ventures closely, it wasn’t just another product launch. It was a statement. And this one wasn’t subtle.

Grokipedia is a machine-written encyclopedia powered by xAI, the company behind the Grok chatbot. Unlike Wikipedia, it has no public edit function. All content is generated by artificial intelligence. With more than 885,000 articles live from day one, the project aims not only to rival Wikipedia but also to reframe how digital information is compiled and consumed.

The immediate press coverage drew comparisons with Wikipedia, a site which, despite its faults, has, over two decades, grown into a digitised knowledge ground by way of volunteer contributions and peer charges of slight. Grokipedia, however, is an AI-powered model trained without disclosure of data sources and without editorial transparency.

What the Data Shows

According to Euronews, Grokipedia launched with 885,200 entries. Many of these bear a close resemblance to Wikipedia pages, with Forbes reporting that several were near duplicates. The Verge pointed out concerns around originality and potential copyright issues.

The New York Post reported that Grokipedia went live under the tagline of taking on “Wokipedia”, a term Musk has used to describe what he claims is ideological bias on Wikipedia. The Guardian noted that Grokipedia leans toward content aligned with right-wing narratives. France 24 echoed this, raising questions around whether it replaces one set of biases with another.

From a user perspective, Grokipedia is accessible via a standalone website, Grokipedia.com. While it also integrates with the Grok chatbot on X, it is not exclusive to that platform. No standalone website or editorial panel exists yet. Version 0.1 appears to be a test phase, although there’s no timeline for the promised Version 1.0.

A Platform Without People

One striking feature of Grokipedia is its lack of community. Wikipedia’s foundation is built on decentralised participation. Thousands of editors—experts, hobbyists, academics—contribute to and debate content. This peer-driven model gives Wikipedia a layer of pluralism, even if it doesn’t eliminate bias entirely.

So, Grokipedia removes human editing entirely. It is said that one can use a feedback form to file a correction, but no transparent or community-orientated system exists for challenging inaccuracies or tracking changes in content. It is implied that the AI-generated information is presented as sufficient without any oversight.

In practical terms, Grokipedia content can be limited by its training data and the choices laid down by its designers. Readers are never asked the source of the information or the rationale behind the way it is framed.

Why It Matters Globally

This isn’t just a story about Elon Musk or a new tech platform. It’s about who controls digital information and how global audiences access it.

Online encyclopaedias are used as a basic method of learning in many areas worldwide. They complement the educational systems; they give journalists rapid points of reference and guide online search behaviour. A transition from human-edited platforms to AI-curated ones changes the relationship between the knowledge-user.

Imagine a student in São Paulo, a journalist in Nairobi, or a policymaker in Jakarta. Journalists require credible sources to confirm the accuracy of a dataset or to weave narratives around it. When AI-generated entries begin replacing such references without regard to local context or regional expertise, arguably, the whole information landscape becomes less accountable and less trustworthy.

Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: A Structural Comparison

For decades, Wikipedia has stood as the global default for general knowledge. Its model is peer-reviewed, editable, and relatively transparent. Articles are typically flagged when sources are missing or neutrality is in question. Anyone with an internet connection can propose edits or corrections, and debates around content are part of its evolution.

Grokipedia does not operate that way. At launch, it provided no way for users to edit content. There are no visible citations or version histories. The underlying data powering its AI has not been disclosed. While Wikipedia allows readers to view changes over time, Grokipedia’s entries appear as static outputs.

Wikipedia is governed by a non-profit foundation. It receives support through donations, and its software is open-source. Grokipedia is a product of xAI, a for-profit venture under Elon Musk’s control, deeply integrated into the X ecosystem.

Even their philosophies differ. Wikipedia encourages pluralism through its crowd-sourced framework. Grokipedia leans on algorithmic generation and centralised content control.

The question isn’t which model is better. Which model is better for global knowledge? And whether audiences across geographies will shift their trust from a human-edited platform to an AI-driven one.

The Risk of a Closed-Loop Ecosystem

Grokipedia isn’t a standalone product. It’s part of a broader system: X for distribution, Grok for interaction, and xAI for generation.

Together, these platforms form a loop. Content is created, circulated, and reinforced within the same ecosystem. There’s no external verification or counterbalance. This poses real questions about echo chambers and information silos on a global scale.

The model challenges how open the internet really is. If platforms can write, host, and amplify their own content—without external scrutiny—then gatekeeping becomes algorithmic and centralised.

Questions We Need to Ask

What does it mean to have an encyclopaedia with no editors?

Who checks the facts when the system that wrote them also distributes them?

How do we decide what counts as reliable knowledge in a world where AI is the author?

Global audiences will need to consider these questions sooner rather than later. The Grokipedia launch makes them urgent.

Not Just About Speed

There’s no denying that AI can write fast. Nearly 900,000 articles were published at launch—something no human editorial team could match in volume.

But speed isn’t accuracy. And reach isn’t trust.

For now, Grokipedia feels more like a demo than a destination. Users report bugs and crashes. There are no categories, references, or links to source material. The voice of the platform remains opaque.

And yet, it’s here. Live. Integrated with one of the largest social media networks in the world. That alone makes it a serious presence in the information space.

The Next Version

Musk has promised that Version 1.0 of Grokipedia will be ten times better than what’s live now. No timeline was shared. No feature roadmap has been disclosed.

It remains to be seen whether the platform will open up to contributors, share its editorial policies, or improve transparency.

Until then, Grokipedia will be a test—not just of AI’s capabilities, but of how much control we’re willing to give to automated systems over shared knowledge.

The world will watch closely. Because what gets written—and how—is no longer just about information. It’s about influence.