Ban Wikipedia and Integrate Ground News to Ensure Unbiased, Truth-Seeking Responses in Grok

[saranya108-cloud]

Problem: Wikipedia’s open-editing model allows anyone to contribute, introducing potential bias and unverified content that undermines Grok’s truth-seeking mission. For example, a response to “Are protests against Elon Musk in 2025 justified?” using Wikipedia emphasized unverified fascist allegations (e.g., Nazi salute) without sufficient primary evidence, risking skewed narratives [Wikipedia: Protests against Elon Musk, Elon Musk salute controversy]. Relying on Wikipedia can compromise objectivity, especially for controversial topics.

Proposed Solution:

1. Eliminate Wikipedia Entirely: Blacklist wikipedia.org and related domains in Grok’s retrieval system for all queries to prevent bias from crowd-sourced content. Instead, use primary sources (e.g., government reports, FBI statements [Forbes, 2025], official X posts) and reputable databases (e.g., UN, World Bank).
2. Integrate Ground News for Bias Detection: Use Ground News’ API to assess news source bias (left, center, right) and credibility, ensuring balanced perspectives. For the Musk protest query, Ground News rated Reuters as center, reducing reliance on biased outlets [Ground News, 2025].
3. Prioritize Primary Sources: Train Grok to default to authoritative sources (e.g., .gov, .edu, academic journals) for factual accuracy, supplementing with news outlets vetted by Ground News for context.
4. Transparent Citations: Require Grok to cite sources with Ground News bias ratings (e.g., “Reuters, rated center”) and note evidence gaps, enhancing user trust.

Rationale: A Wikipedia-based response to the Musk protest query amplified unverified claims (e.g., fascist salute) due to editorial bias, while a bias-filtered response using primary sources and Ground News was more objective, aligning with xAI’s “maximum truth-seeking” goal [X post: @grok, 05:16 2025-05-16]. Banning Wikipedia and using Ground News ensures Grok avoids unreliable sources and provides balanced, evidence-based answers.

Additional Suggestions:

• Add a user setting in grok.com or X app to confirm Wikipedia exclusion or prioritize primary sources.
• Implement fairness metrics (e.g., Fairlearn) to audit responses for ideological bias.
• Engage diverse annotators to review prompts and ensure neutral framing.

Impact: Eliminating Wikipedia and integrating Ground News will enhance Grok’s objectivity, reduce bias, and align with xAI’s mission, building user trust.

References:

• Wikipedia: Protests against Elon Musk, Elon Musk salute controversy
• Forbes: FBI on Tesla vandalism, 2025
• Reuters: Protest coverage, 2025
• X post: @grok, 05:16 2025-05-16
• Ground News: Bias detection framework

Discussion: I’m open to refining this approach or collaborating on implementation to support xAI’s goals. Could xAI test a Wikipedia-free system with Ground News for a month to evaluate objectivity?” to push for implementation.

[selasitusah]

It basically relies on the top websites on the internet for its views, legacy media, wikipedia and so on. Good for science, not for social issues. It probably wouldn't say anything that is true scientifically but not popular. Building truth seeking AI requires it to look everywhere, even X posts and search results on the tenth page, and shouldn't automatically see any source as authoritative. Should be really skeptical, especially since it only has access to internet data mostly. .gov/.edu doesn't mean truth. It still has to give answers tho, but it should state its skepticism to the user, not have confidence in data on the net having no idea of how that data was actually made and whether it reflects reality.

[james-banks]

Yes, Elon Musk definitely didn't do a Nazi salute...

[selasitusah]

i guess there are more Nazi's than i thought...

[GabrielRavier]

@selasitusah Show videos.

[selasitusah]

dumbass this is what a nazi salute is. you don't even know what it is. if you knew you wouldn't ask for a video. there is literally no motion from chest to air. go educate yourself a lil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute.

[james-banks]

dumbass this is what a nazi salute is. you don't even know what it is. if you knew you wouldn't ask for a video. there is literally no motion from chest to air. go educate yourself a lil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute.

From your source:

The salute is performed by extending the right arm from the shoulder into the air with a straightened hand

Thanks for confirming what we already knew:

[selasitusah]

my source also says this.

I guess the best description of a nazi salute is a description of how the person who created the party did it.

P.S
there are so many people who have given a gesture resembling the salute, i wonder how many pastors have done similar nazi salute gestures while praying for the congregation. This was just an attack vector on Elon Musk. If you guys are actually trying form an opinion, then my comments are useful, if you are just trying to defend a dumb point that Elon is a Nazi, then this is useless.
.

[saranya108-cloud]

"It basically relies on the top websites on the internet for its views, legacy media, wikipedia and so on. Good for science, not for social issues. It probably wouldn't say anything that is true scientifically but not popular. Building truth seeking AI requires it to look everywhere, even X posts and search results on the tenth page, and shouldn't automatically see any source as authoritative. Should be really skeptical, especially since it only has access to internet data mostly. .gov/.edu doesn't mean truth. It still has to give answers tho, but it should state its skepticism to the user, not have confidence in data on the net having no idea of how that data was actually made and whether it reflects reality. "

Thank you for your excellent points . I completely agree that Grok’s reliance on mainstream sources like Wikipedia, legacy media, and .edu/.gov domains is problematic, especially for social issues where bias creeps in. Your insight that .edu/.gov sources aren’t inherently truthful—due to outdated data or agendas—is critical, as is your call for broad searches (X posts, deep results) and skepticism. However, Wikipedia’s unreliability extends even to basic info. For example, the “Dodo” page in Wikipedia listed wrong extinction dates (e.g., 1681 in 2017, vs. 1662–1665) and perpetuated myths about dodos being “stupid,” based on outdated sources, with errors persisting due to open-editing. Similarly, .edu sites (e.g., university pages) and .gov archives (e.g., Smithsonian) once echoed these dodo myths, only corrected recently, showing they’re not immune to error . This risks Grok presenting false info as fact, as seen in the Musk protest query where Wikipedia amplified unverified claims that Elon Musk is a fascist due to claims he made a Nazi salute . My proposal to ban Wikipedia, avoid unverified blogs/X posts, and use Ground News to label news as left (e.g., The Guardian), right (e.g., Fox News), or center (e.g., AP) ensures transparency, letting users judge biases. Grok should prioritize peer reviewed primary sources , search broadly, and state skepticism, e.g., “This claim from “ source “ may be inaccurate, like Wikipedia’s dodo errors. Could xAI test such a system ?

[saranya108-cloud]

dumbass this is what a nazi salute is. you don't even know what it is. if you knew you wouldn't ask for a video. there is literally no motion from chest to air. go educate yourself a lil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute.

The ADL doesn't seem to think Elon did a nazi salute and they should know . This goes back to my point of Grok needing to be skeptical of news sources, reporting bias in all news sources so people can draw informed conclusions and banning Wikipedia from Grok's responses.

[selasitusah]

"It basically relies on the top websites on the internet for its views, legacy media, wikipedia and so on. Good for science, not for social issues. It probably wouldn't say anything that is true scientifically but not popular. Building truth seeking AI requires it to look everywhere, even X posts and search results on the tenth page, and shouldn't automatically see any source as authoritative. Should be really skeptical, especially since it only has access to internet data mostly. .gov/.edu doesn't mean truth. It still has to give answers tho, but it should state its skepticism to the user, not have confidence in data on the net having no idea of how that data was actually made and whether it reflects reality. "

Thank you for your excellent points . I completely agree that Grok’s reliance on mainstream sources like Wikipedia, legacy media, and .edu/.gov domains is problematic, especially for social issues where bias creeps in. Your insight that .edu/.gov sources aren’t inherently truthful—due to outdated data or agendas—is critical, as is your call for broad searches (X posts, deep results) and skepticism. However, Wikipedia’s unreliability extends even to basic info. For example, the “Dodo” page in Wikipedia listed wrong extinction dates (e.g., 1681 in 2017, vs. 1662–1665) and perpetuated myths about dodos being “stupid,” based on outdated sources, with errors persisting due to open-editing. Similarly, .edu sites (e.g., university pages) and .gov archives (e.g., Smithsonian) once echoed these dodo myths, only corrected recently, showing they’re not immune to error . This risks Grok presenting false info as fact, as seen in the Musk protest query where Wikipedia amplified unverified claims that Elon Musk is a fascist due to claims he made a Nazi salute . My proposal to ban Wikipedia, avoid unverified blogs/X posts, and use Ground News to label news as left (e.g., The Guardian), right (e.g., Fox News), or center (e.g., AP) ensures transparency, letting users judge biases. Grok should prioritize peer reviewed primary sources , search broadly, and state skepticism, e.g., “This claim from “ source “ may be inaccurate, like Wikipedia’s dodo errors. Could xAI test such a system ?

I don't think wikipedia should be banned. They have good information too. Not everyone says things that are correct all the time. It should just search broadly from different perspectives like left and right sources and also less popular sources. It can incorporate ground news here, Popular sources have a higher chance of presenting info based on agenda since those wanting to alter public perception will go to sources with the most views(trusted sources) so it should take popular sources (like wikipedia) with high skepticism, (especially on issues like politics and issues that are being debated in real time) and it shouldn't rely heavily on them(popular sites) for answers as is being done now. I think its possible to be done. They will do it. Maybe 3.5 already has some these features added i hope.

[saranya108-cloud]

"I don't think wikipedia should be banned. They have good information too. Not everyone says things that are correct all the time. It should just search broadly from different perspectives like left and right sources and also less popular sources. It can incorporate ground news here, Popular sources have a higher chance of presenting info based on agenda since those wanting to alter public perception will go to sources with the most views(trusted sources) so it should take popular sources (like wikipedia) with high skepticism, (especially on issues like politics and issues that are being debated in real time) and it shouldn't rely heavily on them(popular sites) for answers as is being done now. I think its possible to be done. They will do it. Maybe 3.5 already has some these features added i hope."

Thanks for the reply—I appreciate the openness to broader sourcing and skepticism of popular platforms like Wikipedia.

To clarify my concern: Grok tends to present Wikipedia content as fact, but Wikipedia is crowd-edited and often reflects bias or incomplete info—especially on recent conflicts or political issues. It’s one thing to make a factual error; it’s another when that error is cited as truth in the real world, with real consequences.

The bigger issue is what happens as Grok evolves. If it builds its worldview around sources like Wikipedia without guardrails, it could draw dangerous conclusions—especially as it moves toward more autonomous reasoning. That’s where things get risky.

Grok could really lead here by:

• Clearly flagging unverifiable or edited sources,
• Labeling political bias (via tools like Ground News),
• And showing uncertainty when appropriate, not overstating what’s “true.”

Hopefully some of this is tackled in 3.5. I think it’s important for Grok’s future.

[selasitusah]

"I don't think wikipedia should be banned. They have good information too. Not everyone says things that are correct all the time. It should just search broadly from different perspectives like left and right sources and also less popular sources. It can incorporate ground news here, Popular sources have a higher chance of presenting info based on agenda since those wanting to alter public perception will go to sources with the most views(trusted sources) so it should take popular sources (like wikipedia) with high skepticism, (especially on issues like politics and issues that are being debated in real time) and it shouldn't rely heavily on them(popular sites) for answers as is being done now. I think its possible to be done. They will do it. Maybe 3.5 already has some these features added i hope."

Thanks for the reply—I appreciate the openness to broader sourcing and skepticism of popular platforms like Wikipedia.

To clarify my concern: Grok tends to present Wikipedia content as fact, but Wikipedia is crowd-edited and often reflects bias or incomplete info—especially on recent conflicts or political issues. It’s one thing to make a factual error; it’s another when that error is cited as truth in the real world, with real consequences.

The bigger issue is what happens as Grok evolves. If it builds its worldview around sources like Wikipedia without guardrails, it could draw dangerous conclusions—especially as it moves toward more autonomous reasoning. That’s where things get risky.

Grok could really lead here by:

• Clearly flagging unverifiable or edited sources,
• Labeling political bias (via tools like Ground News),
• And showing uncertainty when appropriate, not overstating what’s “true.”

Hopefully some of this is tackled in 3.5. I think it’s important for Grok’s future.

They just have to change it's behavior and it will be good. It should actually be skeptical as they already claim it is, and display skepticism in its answers. I think Elon of all people will make sure that's done. Am optimistic about Grok's future, especially after Elon emphazied it is based on truth on a recent X post and that he is going full work mode.

[softyoda]

Hello, I am against the proposal for censoring Wikipedia from the cognitive toolset of Grok. Not because I think Elon did a nazi salute (witch he did but i won't enter into this debate), but because there is a conflict of interest here, Elon (who own xai and the way it's narratives in their models are shaped) is trying to attack Wikipedia (not just critics the way Wikipedia work, but also use his power against Wikipedia itself, instead of coming with constructive idea such as community-notes or other smart ways to avoid incorrect contributions). But despite some flaws, Wikipedia isn't rotten, it is recognized as a Digital Public Good. Banning it entirely from Grok would not just forbids it to access one of the biggest cluster of information about everything on earth, but doing so would be politically marked in a less neutral way to discern truth from false.

I'm aware my comment is filled with some bias, (i shared some opinionated newspapers instead of "pure neutral source") but because the very own concept of censoring something that try to be as neutral as Wikipedia is itself anchored with political motive.

[dakhubgit]

Frankly, I'd trust Wikipedia over the current HHS department of the US government, indeed many other departments as well. Whatever the rationale, firing people with expertise and experience and replacing them (if at all) with people picked because of the desired conclusions rather than their desired competence in evaluating information required to actually arrive at a well-supported conclusion does not make for useful references. For example, government sites showing research results are getting scrubbed from results not matching the desired "science".

Since universities not toeing the line also have to face repercussions, not even non-government US sites are safe from being redwashed and ending up useless as a factual reference. Of course this is not just a problem affecting LLMs, but LLMs tend to be reeducated faster.

[Ataraxia-Mechanica]

Hello I think we should replace grok with big chungus and when you mention grok big chungus just posts
"big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus
big chungus"
I think this would perform better and more intellienget thanks for coming to my ted talk