It's like Google AI referencing a reddit story. That's not research, but it's good enough for Goof AI.

I dislike the whole idea/musk/maga, but there are problems with wikipedia, and it is naive to think it is unbiased - money and pressure breaks that principle really fast when necessary.

Here, grokopedia were absolutely right about Russia/Ukraine, and surprisingly the first western/US based platform to actually honestly write what Russia says instead of inferring what Russia says/want from ridiculous rumors/claims from the anti-russia campaign/pundits. Wikipedia is filled with biased 'truths' on that article and likely all other high stakes pro-liberal views.

All that unfortunately just means that wikipedias leadership is lying, and that we now have not one, but two biased sources of 'truth'. Each blasting their own path - away from unbiased scientific truth. We cannot trust sources originating from the Western hemisphere where money incentives are above the search for truth. We also see it in our media, where journalists write whatever they are paid to write. Profit and scientific truth only correlate if scientists/oligarchy have the same goal, but usually they don't. Profit and Truth are orthogonal to each other and only overlap at one point.

I wouldn't use/support the private/racist grokopedia - even when verifiably less biased than wikipedia on Russia. I suspect that 'truths' are biased in both. Wikipedia are pretty good at non-controversial topics, but slightly to heavily biased towards the liberal view on most controversial topics (especially current western propaganda topics, bad Russia, bad China, many sexes good, etc). OC the Guardian is at the forefront of deliberate liberal anti-russia propaganda in the West, so they have to write biased claims to keep their readers convinced, and keep the conflict going (money pouring in).

In the end, it is just two right-wing databases fighting for supremacy - anything not right-wing are shut down and other activist - or non-capitalist encyclopedias have been build around on the net instead of fighting wikipedias bias. (no, a 'liberal' is not 'left', they are all capitalists, and thus all following the capitalist doctrines).