Elon Musk’s xAI has announced its ambition to build Grokipedia, a genuine rival to Wikipedia. This is no small task. For Grokipedia to succeed, it must not only compete with Wikipedia’s massive footprint but also confront what Wikipedia has become: the single most effective propaganda system in human history. To steelman this point is not to indulge in hyperbole, but to confront documented evidence that governments, intelligence agencies, and ideological networks systematically shape what appears on Wikipedia. That reality makes the task facing Grokipedia both daunting and necessary.
Wikipedia was launched in 2001 with a bold promise: neutrality. Its co-founder, Larry Sanger, designed the rules so that the encyclopedia would represent all significant views fairly, rather than dictate a single truth. But as Sanger himself now admits, the project has been captured by factions who redefine neutrality in their own image. Tucker Carlson recently pressed him to read the opening of Carlson’s own entry aloud. It described him as “a leading voice of white grievance politics,” a smear lifted from a hostile Washington Post column. Sanger’s point was simple: this is not neutrality. It is propaganda.
How did this drift occur? First, through a change in the meaning of neutrality itself. Wikipedia editors now privilege “reliable sources,” a designation that overwhelmingly favors establishment outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN, while blacklisting Breitbart, The Federalist, Epoch Times, and even the New York Post. The blacklist was institutionalized in 2017, the year Donald Trump entered the White House. Sanger rightly calls this an ideological filter disguised as policy. Once “reliable” is defined as “establishment left,” neutrality collapses.
Second, through infiltration. The WikiScanner project, released in 2007, traced edits back to CIA and FBI computers. The CIA sanitized its own director’s biography and downplayed Iraq War casualties. The FBI deleted aerial photos of Guantanamo Bay. Later investigations showed the UK government, Russian ministries, Canadian intelligence, and EU institutions making edits from official IP ranges. In 2025 the smarter shops no longer leave those fingerprints. They route through consumer VPNs, commercial cloud IPs, university dorms, and residential proxies, and they operate sockpuppet accounts that meet every visible rule. They seed claims into greenlit media and then cite those articles as reliable sourcing, so the provenance is laundered beyond recognition. The Wikimedia Foundation confirmed that Chinese state‑aligned editors infiltrated the system, threatening Hong Kong dissidents and enforcing Beijing’s line. Israeli NGOs like CAMERA openly organized workshops to train cadres of editors. Russian state outlets boasted of disputes on Wikipedia as part of broader information warfare. Indian nationalists sympathetic to the ruling BJP coordinate edits to cleanse pages on Kashmir and CAA/NRC. This is not sporadic meddling but a constant international contest to shape the collective memory of humanity, now waged with tradecraft that makes direct attribution rare and after‑the‑fact detection too late to matter.
Third, through organized NGOs and political activists. Soros’ Open Society Foundations has funded “Wikipedia engagement” programs on a global basis with specific focus in Eastern Europe and Ukraine as part of counter-disinformation campaigns. USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy fund similar initiatives under the banner of digital literacy. In practice, this means training activists to become long-term editors. Domestic activists have learned the same methods. Justice Democrats, Media Matters, and Daily Kos communities coordinate talk-page brigading, converging on contentious topics to frame conservatives as “conspiracy theorists” or “hate groups.” During the George Floyd protests, progressive NGOs dominated the editing, and conservative edits were reverted within minutes. Wikipedia subsequently classified “anti-DEI activism” and “election denialism” as “fringe”, language imported wholesale from Democrat-aligned think tanks. The platform that claims to be neutral now enforces activist jargon.
This capture is not hypothetical. It is baked into the governance of Wikipedia itself. Roughly 1% of editors create 80% of the content, and the inner circle of administrators is anonymous, unaccountable, and prone to ideological conformity. Sanger notes that only 9 out of 62 top functionaries are named publicly. The rest wield immense influence in secret. Wikipedia claims to be a self-correcting community, but in practice it is controlled by a hidden oligarchy. Combine that with the incentive for paid editing, PR firms openly boast about placing client-friendly material, and you have a perfect system for laundering propaganda.
The consequence is that Wikipedia has become the choke point for digital knowledge. Google privileges it in search results. Voice assistants echo its phrasing. AI models, including ChatGPT, ingest its text as ground truth. Thus, the narratives smuggled into Wikipedia by intelligence agencies, NGOs, or activists do not stay confined there. They metastasize across the information ecosystem. When the CIA alters Iraq War casualty language, that edit shapes how a generation of students understands the war. When activist cadres define Tucker Carlson as a racist, that label is reproduced endlessly. Wikipedia is the foundation of our collective memory, and it has been captured.
Skeptics will object. They will say, is this not a paranoid exaggeration? Do not most articles on mundane topics, say, types of lighthouses or the biology of penguins, remain accurate? That is true. Wikipedia is not fraudulent in the trivial. But propaganda does not need to touch every topic. It only needs to control the flashpoints: wars, elections, pandemics, scandals, and biographies of political figures. On these pages, where public perception matters most, Wikipedia is less an encyclopedia and more an ideological battlefield.
This is the world into which Grokipedia must launch. Musk’s project cannot simply replicate Wikipedia’s model, because that model is structurally vulnerable. To succeed, Grokipedia must do at least three things. First, abolish source blacklists. All sources should be usable, with transparent labels about their perspectives. Let the reader see whether an outlet is conservative, liberal, state-funded, or independent, rather than banishing half the spectrum as “unreliable.” Second, eliminate anonymous governance. Editors who wield power should be named, accountable, and liable for abuse. Neutrality cannot be enforced by a cabal hiding behind screen names. Third, embrace pluralism. Rather than pretending there is one neutral account of a contested issue, Grokipedia could host parallel articles: one reflecting conservative scholarship, one progressive, one libertarian. Readers can compare. Truth emerges not from the fiction of consensus but from exposure to competing views.
The challenge is immense. Wikipedia is entrenched, with two decades of network effects and millions of entrenched editors. But the need is urgent. As Sanger warns, Wikipedia’s current path means our collective memory will be curated by a small clerisy aligned with governments, NGOs, and partisan activists. That is intolerable in a free society. Knowledge must be plural, transparent, and contestable. Musk has often spoken about humanity’s need for unfiltered truth. Grokipedia will be the test. Can we build an encyclopedia that resists capture, or must we resign ourselves to the Ministry of Truth disguised as crowd-sourced wisdom?
The stakes could not be higher. For in the end, the struggle over Wikipedia is the struggle over reality itself. If the state and its allies control the reference point for truth, they control the minds of citizens. Musk’s Grokipedia is not just another tech project. It is an effort to reclaim the epistemic commons. And unlike rockets or cars, this time the payload is civilization’s memory.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Corporate Giant Warned Not To Silence Honest Trump Reporting
It appears that AI, through manipulation, is going to ‘steam-roll’ over us whether we like it or not. If there’s anyway to corrupt something, people will do it. Dishonesty is prevalent.