Please add: https://grokipedia.com/

factorfactory

I'd like to see https://grokipedia.com added as an option for the sidebar instead of wikipedia.

It would provide an alternative to the current summary shown on the right of search results.

Gredharm

Not a bad idea. It would be good having an alternative encyclopedia option. Would be interesting if Britannica could be added too, though I'm not sure how they are about sharing articles on search engines.

kirkmc

Please don't add it. It is a biased, AI-generated rip-off of Wikipedia. If one of the goals of Kagi is to not show AI slop, then this should not be an option.

tux0r

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

Remove Wikipedia then. It’s biased.

bostonblack

No. There are so many better and free encyclopedias which doesnt just rip off their content.

fxgn

It doesn't seem like Grokipedia lists the license of it's content anywhere, which means it isn't really clear if it's allowed to include parts of it in search

nichu42

There is that one project that has been around for ages. We know it isn't perfect, but it always gives a good start when you want to know something. And then there is this new project, which copies it and "enriches" the content with lies, propaganda and AI hallucinations. Why would I want that?? This shouldn't even be optional if your mission is to humanize the web.

oxlvlnle

I am confused with people's obsession with "alternatives" without asking why they want to replace something at the first place.

Gredharm

oxlvlnle Because EVERYTHING on the Internet is politically biased one way or another. English Wikipedia is openly Western Atheist culturally oriented and left leaning. You can simply read the edit comments and discussions, it isn't hidden. Grokipedia is openly Western Christian(ish?) and right leaning orientation. Neither even try to provide truly balanced perspectives.

The more information and perspectives available, the better. And then you can simply turn them on or off as you choose, a key feature of Kagi.

Dustin

Kagi already has Assistant if users want to generate a low quality, highly verbose amalgamation of already written knowledge. You just need to prompt it to do so. Assistant users can also "tune" the responses they get to imply the biases they wish.

Jesal

I feel like Grokipedia has extremely questionable incentives that clash with Kagi's philosophy. I hope that they don't end up adding this.

Mr_richard

Grokipedia is just mechahitler filtering Wikipedia. No real knowledge is added.

InternetChunk

If Kagi enshittifies its products with more AI and prioritises it I will heavily reconsider my subscription.

Can’t wait for this AI bubble to pop

Thibaultmol

(Keep in mind, one of problems of kagifeedback rn is that anyone who comments also upvotes the post. Just so you're aware)

carl

I have to defend the OP. There's nothing wrong with this idea. And Wikipedia sure has its faults. I also think that @Gredharm had an excellent suggestion to also include more traditional encyclopedias like Britannica.

The important thing which everybody forgets here in this Feedback forum is that the purpose of Kagi is to find things, not to exclude things. Grok could very well be better and closer to the truth than Wikipedia for many subjects, even if it is AI generated.

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.

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.

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.