AI Alternative | Grokipedia: Musk’s cure may be just as biased

• Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, is set to launch Grokipedia, an AI-driven alternative to Wikipedia. Musk describes it as a response to what he sees as the “political and ideological bias” of Wikipedia, promising a more accurate, context-rich platform powered by xAI’s chatbot, Grok.

Whether Wikipedia is biased has been debated since its creation in 2001. The encyclopedia is written and maintained by volunteers who can only cite existing published sources, as original research is prohibited. This rule ensures verifiability but also means Wikipedia mirrors the biases of the media, academia and other institutions it relies on.

Bias extends beyond politics. Around 80–90% of English-language Wikipedia editors identify as male, and because most secondary sources are historically authored by men, the result is a narrower view of the world — a repository of men’s knowledge rather than a balanced record of human knowledge.

Bias on collaborative platforms often stems not from policy but from participation. Voluntary systems invite self-selection bias — contributors who share similar motivations and values. The same pattern appears in Musk’s own Community Notes fact-checking tool on X (formerly Twitter). My research shows that its most cited external source, after X itself, is actually Wikipedia. Other frequently cited sources cluster around centrist or left-leaning outlets — the very bias Musk criticises.

Wikipedia, at least, acknowledges and documents its limitations. Neutrality is one of its founding principles. Its infrastructure makes bias visible and correctable: multiple perspectives are presented, controversies are noted, and contested claims are flagged. The platform is imperfect but self-correcting — built on pluralism and open debate.

AI faces a similar challenge. Large language models (LLMs) like Grok are trained on vast datasets from the internet, including Wikipedia itself. These models reproduce the gender, political, and racial biases embedded in their data. Although Musk claims Grok counters such distortions, studies show it still leans slightly left of centre — less than rivals, but not neutral. If Grokipedia relies on the same data and algorithms, it risks reproducing the very biases Musk condemns.

Worse, AI may amplify bias by producing the illusion of consensus — authoritative-sounding answers that hide uncertainty or diversity. LLMs tend to smooth political differences and favour majority views, turning collective knowledge into polished but shallow narratives. When bias is hidden beneath fluency, readers may not even notice what’s missing.

Still, AI can strengthen Wikipedia if used wisely. It already assists with detecting vandalism, suggesting citations, and identifying inconsistencies. Properly implemented, AI could improve accuracy, translation across languages, and inclusivity — while preserving Wikipedia’s human-centered ethos.

Conversely, Musk’s X platform could learn from Wikipedia’s model of open deliberation. Community Notes allows users to rate notes but discourages discussion. Research shows that deliberation-based systems, like Wikipedia’s talk pages, improve both accuracy and trust — even when humans collaborate with AI.

Ultimately, the difference between Wikipedia and Grokipedia lies in purpose. Wikipedia is a nonprofit project driven by public interest; xAI and X are commercial ventures. Profit motives are not unethical, but they can distort incentives. If knowledge becomes a monetised product, bias may follow what sells.

Progress depends not on replacing human collaboration with AI, but improving it. Those who perceive bias in Wikipedia could contribute by diversifying its editor base or joining the dialogue themselves. In an age of misinformation, transparency, diversity, and debate remain our best tools for approaching truth.

The Conversation