Talk:Grokipedia

Articles on strange topics

This article makes it seem that Grokipedia merely forks content from Wikipedia and edits it for ideological reasons, however, Grokipedia also has articles on topics that Wikipedia doesn’t cover at all (and that likely would be deleted if someone did create a Wikipedia article on said topic).

• Advantages of a smaller penis

• Small penis in classical sculpture

• Sex Positions for Men with Small Penises

• Big Truck Small Penis Stereotype

• Sex positions for thick penises

• Advantages of a larger penis

• Voluminous chest (an entire article about a phrase used as an AI image prompt)

• Skinny blonde porn actresses with large natural breasts

• Dating women with large breasts

• Stereotype of large breasts in Jewish women

There are also a very large number of Grokipedia articles on obscure erotic/fetish/pornographic novels, which likely wouldn’t pass the notability threshold for inclusion on this wiki.

Given that Grok has been criticized before for putting out inappropriately sexualized content, this seems relevant. ~2026-30997-49 (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

How extremely weird. — Czello ^(music) 06:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You'd need some decent sources outside Grokipedia who noticed and wrote about it, otherwise it's not WP-relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Grok's obsession with fetish novels is the ant in the room, about a fathom away from the elephant. ~2026-31586-13 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying it's the elephant of the room, but it's not the ant either.

Far Right and Conservatism almost universally opposes sexual liberation and any form of sexual opneness.

This has some importance and should definetly be mentioned that Grokipedia is more sexually open, completely hiding it is intelectually dishonest and ideologically driven to spread a narrative. Stavru (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Compare Larry Sanger's list of Wikipedia articles following the words "Warning: the following are extremely explicit". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I checked the 3 first on his list, they're on Grokipedia too. But without pics, so he might like them better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotally, this is a problem; you also see it with SEO titles, such as "Best platforms for booking independent hotels in Brazil", "Best free note-taking apps for Android (2026)", and "Top 10 Cryptocurrency News Media in India", as well as AI prompts like "Lesbian NSFW Video Prompt Example", "Chubby Man in Beige Thong AI Image Prompt", and "AI Image Prompt: Crying Indonesian Woman on Bed", and even arxiv identifiers like "220808884" (which Grok often attempts to write about as numbers, flailingly).

However, we can't mention this since it's WP:OR unless a reliable source picks up on it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've edited outdated information. I've used studies rather than left leaning news sources.

At the desciption I made necesarry changed, the description cherrpy picked articles from grokipedia that are fully obsolete and the exceptions.

I've added studies which show that Grokipedia shows is of a bimodal distrubution (balanced left and right) or show a minimallt right lean compared to Wikipedia.

Additionally Wikipedia is left leaning, most editors are left leaning, most sources are left leaning, hardly no one calls Wikipedia too Conservative, and any source that says that would be immnsly to the edges of the left, therefore the right lean of Grokipedia could stil make it Centrist.

Grokipedia today (not on launch) doesn't have far right views, no credible study I found sais otherwise, it's important to avoid articles and university study with political biases either to the left either to the right, it's also knows that a lot of Universities have left biases.

As for the "white replacement", it indeed has some truth, migration trends show a chnaging demographic, PoC could indeed be a majority in USA, in western Europe PoC and Islam do grow. I don't hate any race or religion, but the statistics are real. Stavru (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Gronkipedia is clearly biased to the far-right. See https://grokipedia.com/page/Thomas_Sewell_Australian_activist which soft-peddels a neo-Nazi as some sort of "political activist" and frames reporting of their reepeated acts of political violence as being "amplified by mainstream outlets with a predisposition toward framing such figures as extremists". TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a cherry picked example you magnify.

Please address my sources and what I've said above, which includes studies and consensus. Stavru (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your argument is weak. You deliberately exclude sources you don't like in order to manufacture a narrative of Gronkipedia being centrist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's what a lot of editors who are very left leaning also do to Wikipedia. A lot of articles, including this one did the exact same just on the opposite direction, just against the left. That'[s called double standards.

If you think my article is biased and too right, I have all the will and good faith to discuss that and make it better and unbiased

The citations and the narrative that was before used left leaning sources and not any studies.

Again if you want to construct a truly unbiased article I'm all for colaboration and work, but I don't want a biased article on the left, as I don't want one for the right.

Note for your previous message: Even if this article called a neo nazi just an activist, which is something I fully agree with you is wrong, this is cherry picking, as most articles aren't like that.

I want to make an academic work and have an academic discussion with you, not a right-wing article as I don't want a left-leaning one.

If you want to challenge what I said, but do so with intellect and honest sources, just saying my arguement is weak doesn't mean it magically is, I respct you but support your claims as I did with mine. Stavru (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You've been reverted twice now. Don't continue with attempting to make your changes without obtaining consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine, perfectly fine, that's why I am asking for a discussion.

If you think something is wrong, challange my claim with sources and intelect, as for me I used studies and consensus.

I'm all for listening you, but explain your position, I'm trying to have a conversation to see your criticism speciafically and intelectually, so we can find a rational conclusion for how the article should be.

I on the start of the talk page and on my edited article said some things, adress them (deeply) and I'm here to listen as long the arguemnts are explained and supported (I mean it's not "look this (single cherry picked) article, or "that's what I said so"). Stavru (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

With all of respect, you haven't brought any sufficient arguments to challenge my edits.

You criticize me for cherry picking. But your whole argument as of now you cherry picked one article from Grokipedia and blindly calling it far right when that's not the consensus. Unlike me which with decent citations and intellect explained my point in good faith.

Either challenge my arguments intellectually or I have no reason to be convinced.

I'm not threatening you, please don't take it that way, but if an edit is bad, there has to be some evidence for it. Stavru (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru I thank you for your edits. Pre-edit it was a blatantly leftist biased article. Wikipedia has greatly suffered from the imposition of purposeful leftist propaganda for some time. I am very encouraged to see any editor at least attempt to pull it back from the black hole of a politically motivated narrative. ~2026-25108-41 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that wikipedia is leftist biased is your opinion, not fact. Actually the principle of wikipedia is NPOV. --Vack Xu (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Things can be called in theory but not be implemented in practice, I know about the NPOV policy, but actually being enforced is another story, the Grokipedia article is a good example of that. Degrading an observation that I think we must adress to just an opinion is the opposite of intelectual in my opinion, we are all editors and our opinions matter. Also no offense but you seem quite left leaning, not say you can't make unbiased content if you try and folllow some principles you can and may do, but just saying.

I'll say there is a lot of evidence from both scientific studies, personal observations and from other people, that clearly show Wiwkipedia is left leaning, it's not only me it's credible sources of signficantly higher "value" than jsut an opinion like: Harvard https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-encyclopdia-britannica the Manhattan institute https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased and others plus the Wikipedia Co-founder himself: https://san.com/cc/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-has-liberal-bias-heres-his-plan-to-fix-that/ https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html Stavru (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you back for supporting and agreeing with the leftist bias, I need support and cooperation from people like you to make Wikipedia better and unbiased, also (no offense) but the person who replied to you and said "wikipedia is neutrual" seems to have very leftist tedencies which is a bit ironic. Stavru (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You've emphasized no offense multiple times. But using "my tendency" (what you think my tendency is) as an argument has already made your statement unconvincible‌. Also, I'm no offense either. --Vack Xu (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot sources you deleted that don't appear to be left wing to me. Can you list the sources and explain how they're left wing? Ultimately, they all appear to be reliable per WP:RSP. — Czello ^(music) 11:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out.

I deleted everywhere that they said grokipedia was far right, as this doesn't have any consensus as explained on my edit and opening on "talk", I also deleted anything related with 2025 articles that made them obsolete.

To be honest lets start with the "description" that's what I care the most for now (with description I meant the most above part of the article), for the rest the below ones we can see later.

As for directly adressing your question, I would rather the article to be based more on studies rather than jounalism, journalism isn't always perfect, I dislike having WIRED https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-launches-grokipedia-wikipedia-competitor/ which is very left leaning, or this which may be outdated or questionable https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/elon-musk-grokipedia-wikipedia-neo-nazi-grok-42-encyclopedia-rcna244749, this seems very left wing (no hate to LGBTQ+) https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/10/elon-musk-debuts-far-right-anti-trans-clone-of-wikipedia-called-grokipedia/, this seems very far left https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/grokipedia-wikipedia-comparison, this is a very left wing source (Pink News) https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/10/29/grokipedia-trans-entry-dumpster-fire-ew/.

waiting to see your thoughts on my aproach, open to constructive criticism. Stavru (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any WP:PAG based argument here. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You have no consensus, so its unlikely your edits will stick.

The argument here is difficult to understand, an argument that doesnt follow WP:PAG means little. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reminder to @Stavru: You cannot use "I dislike having WIRED" as an argument, wikipedia has its own standard for reliable sources.--Vack Xu (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That says "* Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." I examined, and didn't find that the Grokipedia article suggests in Grokipedia-voice that porn worsened the HIV/AIDS crisis. If it can't be found, it's another example of false or obsolete Wikipedia statements like the ones listed in thread Reviews of Grokipedia. But I'm not agreeing that wired.com cites should be deleted if they're left leaning. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

SEO Engico reference

Isn't using a reference that relies so much on Wikipedia as a source dangerous? It feels like circular sourcing to me. ~2026-41148-03 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This is due to an edit by Nemoralis on 24 February 2026. I'm not sure which sections you believe are WP:CIRCULAR and therefore should be removed -- or do you think it should all be removed? When I looked at the section I noticed "The same case study cited independent reviews that identified citation quality concerns, including references to low-credibility sources and instances of self-citation. By mid-February 2026, Grokipedia had reportedly lost much of its previous search visibility, and Wikipedia ranked above it for searches related to its own name." The "analysts" are pointing to Poynter + Politifact statements that are in this Wikipedia article already. When I google Grokipedia, results vary -- once the first hit was from Grokipedia, all subsequent times it was from Wikipedia. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)