GROKIPEDIA IS ALREADY MORE ACCURATE THAN WIKIPEDIA AND IT SHOWS Grokipedia just proved why it is rewriting how knowledge works online. Look at how it covers acupuncture compared to Wikipedia. Grokipedia explains the practice as an ancient Chinese medical system over two thousand years old, describing how it works, what practitioners believe, and what science says about its results. Wikipedia opens by calling it pseudoscience and quackery before even defining it. One informs you, the other attacks. Grokipedia delivers balanced facts while Wikipedia delivers bias. The difference could not be clearer. Source: Grokipedia / Wikipedia
Mario Nawfal
 @MarioNawfal
Oct 28
🚨 🇺🇸 GROKIPEDIA VS WIKIPEDIA: TWO VERSIONS OF JAN 6 Grokipedia’s entry describes Jan. 6 as a riot — factual, chronological, and restrained. It cites crowd breaches, security failures, and prosecutions without assigning political intent. Wikipedia calls it an “attempted coup” in the first line, framing it as a premeditated plot by Trump and his supporters to overturn the election. Same event. Two narratives. One reports. The other editorializes. Source: Grokipedia / Wikipedia

Oct 28, 2025 · 4:30 AM UTC

188
529
31
2,903
Replying to @MarioNawfal
I see Grok is pushing lots of Russian disinfo, as expected. Five years of Musk being allowed to rewrite history is going to have us all living in a very dark world.
3
39
337
Replying to @MarioNawfal
The Grokipedia version just describe 'pseudoscience' in a fancy way 😂
9
2
89
Replying to @MarioNawfal
This is confirmed when you look at them analyze each other:
Sayer Ji
 @sayerjigmi
Oct 28
🚀 The verdict is out — we’ve compared the two encyclopedia-world heavyweights: one being Wikipedia’s page about Grokipedia, and the other Grokipedia’s page about Wikipedia. Which is the purer form of “encyclopedic integrity”? Which holds the least bias? ▶️ A detailed table shows: Wikipedia’s article = louder, less balanced en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokip… Grokipedia’s article = data-dense but ideologically tilted grokipedia.com/page/Wikipedi… 🎉 Congrats to Elon Musk for catalyzing this deep dive — your work is sparking new reference-models. @elonmusk 📣 And to Larry Sanger, your ZWI standard and the work of Knowledge Standards Foundation/Encyclosphere are very much relevant here. Check out encyclosphere.org for more. @lsanger 🔍 In my own deeper unpacking – e.g., how Grokipedia just did in the case of Sayer Ji what Wikipedia has repeatedly failed to do – see my Substack piece: sayerji.substack.com/p/groki… 📌 In other words: Without saying “Wikipedia is completely corrupt” or “Grokipedia is perfect,” this comparison reveals significant tilt and opens the door for seeing which model is closer to factual fairness.
7
18
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Bravo
1
6
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Bias is everywhere — think for yourself.
1
Replying to @MarioNawfal
This acupuncture comparison is a perfect indictment of Wikipedia's agenda-driven editing. Starting with "pseudoscience" and "quackery" isn't neutrality—it's a hit job. Grokipedia lays out the 2,000-year tradition, the theory, and the scientific debate without sneering at patients or practitioners. Balanced, thorough, and respectful of reader intelligence. That's the standard we deserve, not activist gatekeeping.
6
6
94
Replying to @MarioNawfal
The quickest way to get someone to stop taking you seriously is to cite your source as Grokipedia.
11
1
70
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Grokipedia effectively demonstrates just how woke Wikipedia actually is.
2
65
Replying to @MarioNawfal
@Wikipedia your time to die has come you woke leftist turds
56
Replying to @MarioNawfal
but it is quackery, what's the problem here ?
4
30
Replying to @MarioNawfal
My wife went through the entire gambit of western medicine to help with her neuropathy culminating with the podiatrist saying "Nothing else I can do, let's see how it is in a year" (with Gabapentin - a drug with horrible side effects) One acupuncture treatment later and she was 80% better and gabapentin free
1
1
19
Replying to @MarioNawfal
So Grok took Wikipedia article as input, reformatted it, then spit it back out as non-biased?
4
16
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Musk fags just glaze anything bro
13
Replying to @MarioNawfal
How about no
2
13
Replying to @MarioNawfal @david_rubli
Meanwhile, the broken gender crowd on Reddit are pissed that Grokipedia provides the biological definition for “gender”.
11
Replying to @MarioNawfal
I'm with Wikipedia on this one. Acupuncture IS pseudoscience and quackery. It's nonsense on a stick. Also, it's obviously not 2,000 years old. The technology necessary to make long, thin, straight needles didn't exist until a few hundred years ago.
1
9
Replying to @MarioNawfal
WIKI IS WOKE, GROKI WOKE-ER! 😂
10
Replying to @MarioNawfal
But it is quackery. Why not call a spade a spade? Scared of offending people?
6
Replying to @MarioNawfal
But it is pseudoscience... That has been proven
6
Replying to @MarioNawfal
You moron, they both say it is bullshit, can you read at least? But one makes it easier for idiots to self-validate their lunacy. Grokpedia is wikipedia for minus habens
6
Replying to @MarioNawfal
People need to read. Calling it pseudo-science is not a value judgement because it is exactly that. Also, I'm no fan of Wikipedia but the entry says "it has been regarded as quackery" not "It is quackery." Should it be complete in who is doing the name calling? Certainly.
6
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Well if Huangdi Neijing said it regulates the flow of the vital energy qi, then It must be true.
1
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Nice, we needed this change of perspective
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
This is an incredible undertaking. But I just looked at Grokipedia for the first time, and glanced over the article on Latin Square… and within a couple minutes I found an error in the part about Ryser’s conjecture.
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Wiki's quackery opener? Gatekeeping gone wild; Grokipedia's the antidote for actual adulting.
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Too much right-wing bias to be useful for anything really - nice idea, hopefully Google or someone with a neutral AI will build something similar and have it available for broader and academic use. Shame Elon puts his want to push his politics over building something useful.
10
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
It isn't actually a Chinese system that's over 2,000 years old though. And your own tweet shows clear signs of having been written by an AI. I have a lot of beef with Wikipedia, but if Grok is going to start propagating claptrap it's not a good sign.
1
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Uhh they are the same. Wiki is just shorter
1
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
If you think it is not pseudoscience, then refer us to the scientific studies. "Pseudoscience" is not synonymous with "Bullshit", and it is quite precisely defined, if you bothered to follow the link.
5
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Grokicool 🤓
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Elon needs to make Grok OS
2
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
This is exactly what we need. A place where actual facts are represented without editorials, therefore allowing the reader to know the relevant facts to make their own conclusions.
1
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Looks like I am going to delete the Wikipedia app off my phone
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
The grok one is shockingly poorly structured for llm vomit. Medical doesn’t even appear, yin and yang is just left to the reader. I think you chose one of the poorest examples you could have
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
it is pseudoscience though
4
Replying to @MarioNawfal
Stfu Mario you lying pos
4
Load more