Not everything on Wikipedia is true, but the parts Elon Musk hates most are probably true.

So we just make things up on HN now? Care to share any examples?

Well, you yiyrself did not provide any sources for asserting the argument that some of what is on Wikipedia is false

Not sure if this is an example of something Musk hates, but here’s a paragraph from the “2016 presidential campaign” section of the Donald Trump article on Wikipedia.

> Trump's FEC-required reports listed assets above $1.4 billion and outstanding debts of at least $265 million.[140][141] He did not release his tax returns, contrary to the practice of every major candidate since 1976 and to promises he made in 2014 and 2015 to release them if he ran for office.[142][143]

I could not find any mention of tax returns on the Donald Trump page of Grokipedia.

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Grokipedia:

https://grokipedia.com/page/Donald_Trump

Maybe not all of it, but a vast majority of it is. And almost certainly the parts that drove Elon to slopify it are true.

Citation needed.

That's not how it works. You're making the extraordinary claim that a widely trusted and strictly moderated encyclopedia with tons and tons of citations to back up the truthfulness of its contents is not mostly true. You get to prove that assertion, since your claim is the extraordinary one.

Epstein files. State actors, company security departments, activists, etc influence and seemingly control the more meaningful/controversial Wikipedia sections.

I think it’s just an inherent flaw in ANY centralized and universal repository of knowledge.

I haven’t actually ever been on grokipedia but I’m sure Elon influences it, I mean if I paid for something I’d expect it to be to my liking too.

No, when did I say that? That’s impossible for anything of the size of Wikipedia.

I was suggesting that Elon Musk, a man who has donated hundreds of millions to Trump and other Republican causes, who has numerous financial conflicts of interest, and who has publicly lied numerous times, is never going to produce a more unbiased and factual encyclopedia than Wikipedia.

Especially when his effort to do so is essentially AI slop from a third rate LLM on top of his own biases.

Right, and Wikipedia leadership is free of any conflicts of interest:

During and after her Wikimedia role, Maher drew fire for statements perceived as rejecting objective truth or Wikipedia’s traditional “free and open” model:

• In a 2021 TED Talk, she described reverence for truth as potentially a “distraction” hindering common ground.

• She called Wikipedia’s free-and-open ethos a “white male Westernized construct” that excluded diverse communities.

But she’s not the one writing and editing the wiki pages. It’s open, and there are open discussions as well. What’s it matter what she thinks?

Why would I ever trust an encyclopedia totally controlled by one megalomaniac over one that I myself can contribute to?