Please add: https://grokipedia.com/

InternetChunk

„Better than wikipedia” what are you even on about. Wikipedia lists its sources, is fact checked numerous times, is non profit - Grok isn’t any of those things. LLMs are notorious for hallucinations and being confidently wrong.

Kagi is about finding results - but only the truth. No credible person wants Elon’s AI’s biased slop

bostonblack

InternetChunk tbh grokipedia also list the references of its needlessly long written content. but there is no author, no one responsible. its the opposite of well documented and comprehensible content. this should not be nowhere near kagi.

carl

InternetChunk Kagi is about finding results - but only the truth.

And who should decide what counts as truth? You? Me? A council of activists on the Kagi Feedback forums? You're saying the same as Elon Musk said about Grok recently in an interview. He said that they had to do a massive job of removing stuff from Grok's training so that it would always tell the truth. And you're saying that Kagi has to remove stuff to always tell the truth.

Kagi is not about censoring and deciding what is true and removing the rest. If it becomes that, then the company won't find many more customers.

bostonblack

carl highly unlikely, no proof given here. Grokipedia is just a classic try of flooding the zone with so much content, that its hard to proper debunk it.

carl

bostonblack Neither does Wikipedia have responsible authors. Many top editors and admins are anonymous.

kirkmc

carl I think it's obvious that a clone of Wikipedia with a clear bias is not going to be truthful. Wikipedia may be flawed, but it allows for people of all viewpoints to edit and discuss things. Musk's things is just a billionaire's propaganda tool, flooded with AI slop.

carl

kirkmc Wikipedia is constantly critizised for strong political bias. Most notably by co-creator Larry Sanger. It is true that anybody can make an edit, but there is a hierarchy of admins who will remove your edit if it doesn't align with their views.

I like the OP suggestion and I also like the suggestion for other sources like Britannica. Let the user choose what she prefers, as long as it fits within the limitations that Kagi will have regarding cost and effort.

I would also suggest for Kagi to look into integrating non-English encyclopedias as an option for people. In many languages, they will be more comprehensive than Wikipedia.

For me personally, I would like to replace the Wikipedia on the right with an image gallery for my search term, as I find this much more useful. But I understand that it might be too expensive for Kagi to offer this.

kirkmc

Wikipedia is criticized by the right for political bias, just as they pretend that everyone is biased against conservatives. This criticism is done in bad faith, and used as at way to attack anything they don't like. The saying "reality has a liberal bias" isn't entirely untrue, because the idea of liberalism is to focus on the truth, not on ideological beliefs. Just to cite the example of climate change, this is an issue where there is overwhelming scientific evidence, but the right wants to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Here are some examples of its bias:

https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/elon-musk-fake-wikipedia-grokipedia-21131512.php

I mean, defending Hitler really should disqualify it without any further discussion.

carl

kirkmc

It doesn't actually matter if Wikipedia (or Grok) is biased or not, and I don't think this is a place where we can have any constructive discussion regarding the matter.

The point is that Kagi should help the user to find the things she is looking for, and if the user has any preference for sources, she should be allowed to customize her experience according to her preferences. Provided that costs and effort makes sense for Kagi. After all, the user is paying for the service.

What doesn't make sense is that you or I or anybody else should sit here in the feedback forum and decide what other paying customers are allowed or not allowed to see and find with Kagi. That's a recipe for failure.

If I want to find and read lies and bullshit with Kagi, that's my right as a paying customer.

If I want to find and listen to horrible bands that you hate with Spotify, that's my right as a paying customer.

If I want to watch crap movies on Netflix, that's my right as a paying customer.

If I want to make gaudy art and over-saturated HDR photos in Affinity, that's my right as a paying customer.

And so on. Censorship is never the answer.

Wikipedia is fine as the default option for all users. Nobody in this thread will have any negative impact on their Kagi experience if they allow other users to choose Grok, Britannica or another personal experience.

kirkmc

No one is suggesting that Kagi not show it when you search. The suggestion was to add it instead of the Wikipedia widget. Big difference.

carl

kirkmc No, that's where you might have misunderstood the OP. The suggestion is not to replace Wikipedia, the suggestion is to add Grok as an option for those who prefer it to Wikipedia.

Gredharm

kirkmc No, that was never the suggestion, re-read the OP. The suggestion was for it to be an optional alternative.

Kagi is about providing information tailored to what users want. Grokipedia provides an alternative that some people will prefer. The more options the better. It isn't Kagi's job to tell people what the truth it. If people want that, they can use Google instead.

And to respond to some other comments. I could see Kagi in the long term maybe offering optional paid widgets. For example pay $X per month for the Britannica widget, and they could go into an agreement with Britannica to provide that. I'd absolutely pay maybe a few dollars extra a month to have Britannica show up for any topic it covers, and for its articles to be included as sources in LLM web search queries. Add as another widget, a bunch of legit dictionaries, the full 20 volume Oxford, plus simpler dictionaries as well. Again, would 100% pay for that.

And personally, I'd choose to include both Wikipedia and Grokipedia results. So I can get both biased opinions, and form my own.

Dustin

This discussion was also happening with Wikipedia 20+ years ago. Whether you believe Wikipedia is an authoritative, trustworthy source in 2025 is irrelevant because back then, it was not yet seen as such.

Putting aside the person behind Grokipedia, the reason for its creation, the manner in which information is 'acquired', the explicit and overt political goals, the low quality product, the accessibility shortcomings, the poor UX, the corporate control... Grokipedia is about 7 minutes old and is not yet proven to be of any value to the concept of information sharing or to the world as a whole.

I agree Kagi should absolutely seek out options to add alternatives to Wikipedia (like Britannica) to allow users more choice.

Ultimately, Kagi's product is worth paying for because it prioritizes surfacing high quality, human-centric, user respecting sources.

kirkmc

Is Britannica free? I doubt it. I can't see Kagi paying to license that.

carl

kirkmc That's a cost-benefit question, which would only be known after Kagi negotiates with Britannica. If both companies have interest in it.

For me, it would be a pleasure to pay extra for Kagi to give me the option to replace the Wikipedia widget with a gallery of images instead. It's easy enough to find Wikipedia articles, without the need of a sidebar.

kirkmc

carl So "let's give users a nazi option, if they want it?" That's something an ethical service should do?

carl

I don't think your comment adds much. Not everybody who is different from you are nazis.

kirkmc

carl I think it has been shown that the person behind this "encyclopedia" has such tendencies. It's not that he's different from me, it's that he has shown active political hostility.

tux0r

kirkmc I think it has been shown that the person behind this "encyclopedia" has such tendencies.

Kagi is a search engine. A search engine that filters its sources by what a website’s founder thinks about politics is broken.

tux0r

kirkmc It is a biased, AI-generated rip-off of Wikipedia.

Remove Wikipedia then. It’s biased.

kirkmc

tux0r The suggestion isn't about search results.

« Previous Page Next Page »