[pie_flavor]

I've found in at least two instances Grokipedia had something Wikipedia didn't.

One was looking up who "Ray Peat" was after encountering it on Twitter. Grok was obviously a bit more fawning over this right-aligned figure but Wikipedia had long since entirely deleted its page, so I didn't have much of a choice. Seems bizarre to just not have a page on a subject discussed every day on Twitter.

The other is far more impactful IMO. Every politician's or political figure's page on Wikipedia just goes "Bob is a politician. In 2025 <list of every controversial thing imaginable>". You have no idea what he's about and what he represents; you don't even have any idea if anyone cared, since all this was added at that moment in 2025 and not updated since. Grokipedia does not do this at all. If you want to know about someone's actual political career, Grokipedia weights recent controversies equal to past controversies and isolates it all to a section specifically for controversies. (The same also happens in reverse for hagiographies; Grok will often be much more critical of e.g. minor activists.)

[jrflowers]

>Ray Peat

>Seems bizarre to just not have a page on a subject discussed every day on Twitter.

The idea that if a guy writes “avocados cause cancer and honey cures it” he should be put in the encyclopedia if it gets enough retweets is the organizing principle behind grokipedia. It would be much more bizarre to expect a serious encyclopedia to work the same way for no good reason.

[pie_flavor]

Other, much dumber nutrition cranks like Anthony William and Gary Null have Wikipedia pages. Fundamentally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be the place that you go to when you hear a concept and want to look up what it is.

[rbanffy]

TBH, Wikipedia should have pages on these cranks and point out they are cranks and that if they say the sky is blue that's because it changed color.

[bigyabai]

> Every politician's or political figure's page on Wikipedia just goes "Bob is a politician. In 2025 <list of every controversial thing imaginable>".

Are we searching for the same political figures? I just punched in three random politicians on Wikipedia (Lavrov, Rubio, Sanders) and all of their introductory paragraphs are a list of their past and present political offices. Legacy and controversy is reserved for it's own heading, or pushed into the back of the summary.

For most public officials, that seems like a fair shake. The only outliers I can think of are obviously-reviled figures like Joe Kony, Cecil Rhodes or Adolph H., who should probably get condemned above the fold for the courtesy of the reader.

[tokai]

Ray Peat seems completely unremarkable besides the Bronze Age Pervert group name dropping him a lot. He is mentioned in the BAP wikipedia article. It can of cause be debated, but I feel his notable is low enough for a general reader, to not warrant an article on his person.

[HK-NC]

Ive noticed similar. I dont like the site, bit hopefully wiki are away of this and learn something from it. Some pages read like they were written by zealots rather than people documenting facts.

[JKCalhoun]

Why have Grokipedia at all then? The site ought to just be a search field where Grok just fields a "page" on the fly for whatever the user queries.

Feels more like Grokipedia is just a fuck-you to Wikipedia and the world in general. (Oh shoot, I just misspelled Woke-apedia.)