The article, based on Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine, examines the prospects for applying generative artificial intelligence (using ChatGPT as an example) in encyclopedia studies, particularly for enhancing the efficiency of editors in preparing encyclopedic content. It emphasizes that ChatGPT can serve as a valuable assistant to the editor, especially through its ability to analyze author manuscripts, identify shortcomings, gaps, and inaccuracies, verify facts and statistical data, and suggest linguistic and stylistic improvements. A separate focus is placed on the compositional organization of the encyclopedic article’s text (its division into structural elements, including paragraphs) even though such structuring is absent in many reference works. The paper stresses that articles divided into paragraphs or sections are more likely to be read and, consequently, are of greater practical value. ChatGPT has the potential to provide such structural organization in encyclopedic publications, particularly their online versions (although certain risks must be taken into account). The same capabilities of artificial intelligence can also be applied by editorial teams during the preparation of new articles.

This article examines Grokipedia, a new online encyclopedia created by xAI under the leadership of Elon Musk. Unlike traditional encyclopedias based on expert editing (e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica) or crowdsourced collaboration (Wikipedia), Grokipedia generates its content entirely through the ar­tificial intelligence system Grok. The study is based on a comparative analysis of the Ukraine articles in Grokipedia and Wikipedia (as of October 28, 2025). Methods of content analysis and critical dis­course analysis are employed to identify structural, factual, and ideological features of AI-generated text. Grokipedia demonstrates a somewhat simplified and more generalized manner of presenting material, although overall both articles appear quite similar in terms of knowledge coverage and tex­tual organization. The key differences lie primarily in the emphasis and interpretation of facts. Tech­nological innovation, without adequate epistemological and editorial standards, does not ensure knowledge quality — this becomes particularly evident in cases of Grokipedia’s unjustified symmetri­zation of perspectives on historical events, where the pursuit of “balance” replaces the criteria of factual accuracy and scholarly rigor. In its current form, Grokipedia represents an experimental attempt to apply artificial intelligence in encyclopedic practice rather than a fully-fledged alternative to Wikipedia.

The article examines the semantic and cognitive features of the term polon [captivity] in Ukrainian ency­clopedic discourse. The analysis is based on scientific and reference sources in Ukrainian, including uni­versal and specialized encyclopedias, online encyclopedias, encyclopedic dictionaries and reference dic­tionaries. The results of the study showed that the semantic specificity and functional features of the term captivity, which belongs to the conceptual fields of freedom/slavery and war, define it as a complex inter­disciplinary unit, the nature of which cannot be interpreted solely based on the information contained in modern encyclopedias. The need to use both direct dictionary entries and indirect encyclopedic material (prisoners of war/captives) to clarify the semantic structure of the lexeme captivity is emphasized. The core, basic and peripheral semes of the concept of captivity are identified and adapted to modern realities. It has been found that the term captivity functions in articles of various types, styles and topics, and is most often found in articles about personalities, which allow for a deeper and more specific understanding of the se­mantic structure of the unit under analysis. A lack of information about captivity that corresponds to the realities of the Russian-Ukrainian war has been identified; therefore, to actualize the modern semes cov­ered by the term captivity, an attempt has been made to draw on material from scientific discourse. It has been determined that encyclopedic discourse contains sufficient multifaceted material on captivity, but this information requires careful searching and recording, so emphasis has been placed on the need to cre­ate quick access to such an important term as captivity within a single dictionary entry.

The article examines the origins of Ukrainian encyclopedism through the example of the first encyclopedic work produced on Ukrainian territory — the Polish-language edition of Benedykt Chmielowski’s Nowe Ateny [New Athens] (1745–1756). The study highlights the relevance of conducting a historical and book-studies analysis of this work in the broader context of the development of the national book culture, as well as the intellectual, cultural, and Enlightenment processes of the eighteenth century. The research is grounded in both general scholarly and specialized methods of historical book studies, including comparative-historical, analytical, contextual, and source-critical approaches. It employs an interdisciplinary framework that integrates the history of science, philology, cultural studies, and encyclopedic studies. The study establishes that Nowe Ateny represents a synthetic encyclopedic compendium of the Baroque era, in which religious, natural-scientific, historical, and folkloric knowledge are interwoven. Source analysis demonstrates that Chmielowski relied primarily on medieval and early modern authors, intentionally avoiding thinkers of the early modern period whose views conflicted with Catholic doctrine. Despite contemporary accusations of compilation and naivety, Nowe Ateny reflects the state of scientific thought and the level of intellectual curiosity among educated readers on Ukrainian lands in the eighteenth century. The work pursued a didactic aim — popularizing knowledge among the nobility, clergy, and student youth. Chmielowski’s encyclopedia should be regarded as a cultural and historical phenomenon that combines features of late Baroque intellectual culture and the early Enlightenment. It functioned as a vehicle for disseminating scientific knowledge, facilitated the spread of heliocentric ideas, and broadened the worldview of the educated strata of society. Despite its compilatory nature and evident scholarly limitations, Nowe Ateny emerged as an important monument of book culture, marking the transition from scholastic tradition to more systematic encyclopedic thinking on Ukrainian lands.

The article surveys encyclopedic publications that contain entries on Ivan Puluj (1845–1918), from the earliest references in 1898 to the present day. Special attention is given to the wide-ranging and interdisciplinary character of Puluj’s activity, which earned him international recognition. As a physicist, he is regarded among the most notable scientific figures of the late nineteenth century: his fundamental studies of cathode rays paved the way for the discovery of the electron and contributed to the emergence of X-ray science and early medical radiography. Puluj’s achievements in practical electrical engineering and invention are today represented in museums of science and technology across Europe and the United States. In the humanities, he is known as a translator of the Bible from classical languages into Ukrainian and as an advocate of education in the native language. Through numerous public essays and pamphlets, he defended the rights of the Ukrainian language and argued for the opening of a Ukrainian university in Lviv. In political writings published in German in Prague and Vienna at the beginning of the First World War, Puluj forcefully maintained that the establishment of an independent Ukrainian state was essential for peace and stability in Europe. The article also addresses widespread inaccuracies in printed and online sources concerning the life and work of Ivan Puluj, correcting them on the basis of documentary evidence.

Based on the significant expansion of access in Ukraine to original 19th-century world scientific literature, and the growing culture of preserving historical memory in the field of science and technology—as exemplified by numerous university-led digital initiatives worldwide—this work offers a new interpretation of the scientific achievements of the eminent Ukrainian experimental physicist Ivan Puluj, in comparison with those of his contemporaries. Drawing on the criteria for Nobel laureates as formulated by the administrators of the inaugural prize in 1901, the study rigorously demonstrates that limiting recognition to Wilhelm Röntgen alone was unjustified, and that the candidacy of our compatriot possessed notable advantages over his closest competitors. It is shown that Puluj’s scientific contributions were effectively silenced by represent-atives of the dominant imperial scientific schools of the time. This pattern of omission persists even in the materials of such a democratic source of information as the modern global Wikipedia. In this context, the work underscores the vital importance of cultivating principles of scientific integrity—principles consistently exemplified by both Michael Faraday and Ivan Puluj.