It will make Wikipedia as obsolete as GeoCities and Altavista within two years.

Also it's (so far) going to be renamed Encyclopedia Galactica.

To the naysayers: it will follow the trajectory of SpaceX: some failures, some progress, some more failures, complete and utter dominance.

引用自 caltrop77：

finally an un-woke version of wikipedia

We already have that. It's called conservapedia.

引用自 Gracey Face：

引用自 caltrop77：

finally an un-woke version of wikipedia

We already have that. It's called conservapedia.

Sure, and Vox Day's attempt at another fork, Infogalactic.

None of the forks, let alone the original, even come close to what Grokipedia is now (except Wiki's voulume of course, which disparity will disappear sometime in 2027), let alone what it becomes in just the next year, let alone two. Most will be amazed, some will be dismayed, but the thing will dominate over them all, simply because it will be better at what it's supposed to be.

引用自 Masque：

引用自 Gracey Face：

We already have that. It's called conservapedia.

Sure, and Vox Day's attempt at another fork, Infogalactic.

None of the forks, let alone the original, even come close to what Grokipedia is now, let alone what it becomes in just the next year, let alone two. Most will be amazed, some will be dismayed, but the thing will dominate over them all, simply because it will be better at what it's supposed to be.

Conservapedia wasn't a fork. It's a fully fledged independent wiki encyclopedia.

Hmm, just checked, Grokipedia still says that the gulf of tonkin incident was a false flag even though the vietnamese navy claimed both attacks and use the second attack as their anniversary due to it being "the first great victory against the american imperialists". (I use this as a guideline as it was the first time I saw something just flat out get taken off of wiki for not fitting with "the narrative")

Ah well, maybe it will improve in the future.

Thanks, Gracey, I didn't know it wasn't a fork.

Via Grok:

Encyclopedia -- Article Count -- Notes/Source

Wikipedia -- 7,101,021 -- Continuously growing; ~500 new articles per day.

Infogalactic -- 2,433,194 -- Fork of Wikipedia from 2016; largely static since then.

Grokipedia -- 1,000,000 -- AI-powered; launched with ~885,000 articles.

Conservapedia -- 58,648 -- Conservative-focused wiki; modest growth.

I also asked for a prediction regarding when Grokipedia's article count will surpass Wikipedia's.

To predict this, we can use observed growth rates, assuming they remain roughly linear (a simplification, as real growth may vary due to technical limits, content quality issues, or user adoption).

Wikipedia's growth: Approximately 500 articles per day.

Grokipedia's growth: From 885,279 articles on October 27, 2025, to over 1,000,000 by early December (using 1,000,000 for calculation), that's a gain of ~114,721 articles over 39 days, or ~2,943 articles per day.

Relative growth advantage: Grokipedia gains ~2,443 articles per day more than Wikipedia.

Current gap: ~6,101,021 articles (7,101,021 - 1,000,000).

Dividing the gap by the relative growth rate gives ~2,499 days. Adding this to December 5, 2025, points to October 7, 2032, as the approximate date when Grokipedia could surpass Wikipedia's article count.

This prediction is speculative and depends on sustained high growth for Grokipedia (e.g., via AI automation) without major disruptions. If Grokipedia's expansion slows or accelerates, the timeline could shift significantly.

Also, Gracey, remember what I said about SpaceX.

Grokipedia is in its infancy. SpaceX was, too, not even five years ago.

And then it dominated the industry, because they learned from mistakes, corrected course each iteration, and perfected the process.

Grokipedia will do the exact same thing.

Considering that even grok ♥♥♥♥♥ the bed when you ask it politically inconvenient questions I don't know whether grokipedia will be any better than wikipedia.

Also spaceX "dominated the industry" because they stole a bunch of research from NASA and fooled politicians into giving them unlimited funding. That's not really a great example.

引用自 Gracey Face：

引用自 Masque：

Sure, and Vox Day's attempt at another fork, Infogalactic.

None of the forks, let alone the original, even come close to what Grokipedia is now, let alone what it becomes in just the next year, let alone two. Most will be amazed, some will be dismayed, but the thing will dominate over them all, simply because it will be better at what it's supposed to be.

Conservapedia wasn't a fork. It's a fully fledged independent wiki encyclopedia.

Hmm, just checked, Grokipedia still says that the gulf of tonkin incident was a false flag even though the vietnamese navy claimed both attacks and use the second attack as their anniversary due to it being "the first great victory against the american imperialists". (I use this as a guideline as it was the first time I saw something just flat out get taken off of wiki for not fitting with "the narrative")

Ah well, maybe it will improve in the future.

Without AI integration and Elons resources its just not going to be competitive.

引用自 Hathaway：

Without AI integration and Elons resources its just not going to be competitive.

Well, it's good then that it has both.