INTRODUCTION

In late October 2025, xAI (a company focused on artificial intelligence) introduced a new online encyclopedia, Grokipedia (https://grokipedia.com). Its most striking feature is that its more than 800,000 articles are generated and “fact-checked” solely by the AI chatbot Grok, a design intended to replace human editors altogether (Michael, 2025). In effect, this is the first large-scale universal encyclopedia authored by a machine rather than by humans. Not long ago, editors of the U.S.-based Encyclopedia of Southern Culture remarked that “encyclopedia making is a slow, deliberate process” (Wilson, 2006, p. 6), highlighting the traditionally long-term and collaborative nature of such work. Today, however, we see the opposite: thanks to cutting-edge technologies, a massive encyclopedia has been assembled in just a matter of months.

Modern encyclopedic practice traces its roots to the French Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, created during the Enlightenment (Perović, 2011). Its compilers — Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert — brought together the foremost intellectuals of their time, establishing a tradition of encyclopedic creation grounded in expert knowledge. This model was later advanced by the British Encyclopaedia Britannica, which became the standard for organizing comprehensive knowledge about the world and set the benchmark for reliability in reference publishing (Flanagin & Metzger, 2011). Since then, this model — where content is written, edited, and reviewed by subject-matter experts — has been known as the traditional, or classical, approach to encyclopedia production.

The emergence of Wikipedia, supported by advances in digital technologies and the culture of open access to knowledge, marked a new and truly revolutionary stage in the history of encyclopedic work. It introduced the principle of collective user participation: articles and illustrations are created not by experts but by a community of volunteer enthusiasts. This approach, known as the crowdsourcing model (Mesgari et al., 2015), reshaped not only the conceptual foundations of preparing encyclopedic content. Free access to vast amounts of reference information dramatically transformed the global encyclopedic landscape, challenging traditional encyclopedias in terms of staying relevant and credible, while also encouraging greater openness, interactivity, and continual updating of content (Jermen & Jecić, 2020; Popyk, 2025). As a result, encyclopedias evolved from static historical reference sources into active digital media platforms (online encyclopedias) that provide current and continuously refreshed information.

Today, a third model is emerging: the machine-based or AI-generated approach, where the creation of encyclopedic articles is assigned not to humans but to generative artificial intelligence systems. These systems draw on existing knowledge bases, and the algorithms behind them are believed to be capable of efficiently synthesizing and organizing information and presenting it free of human influence, meaning without the subjectivity, value judgments, or ideological biases inherent to human cognition. Generative artificial intelligence has been used in encyclopedic work from its early days, but mainly as a supporting tool for tasks such as searching, summarizing material, and fact-checking, rather than as the author of entire articles (Sharma, 2024; Zhelezniak & Ishchenko, 2024). Grokipedia, however, marks a turning point, shifting the practice from human-produced content to machine-generated text, with the algorithm itself acting as the encyclopedia’s writer. The project’s developers claim that Grokipedia is meant to be an improved version of Wikipedia and that its mission is to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (Gold, 2025). If this claim proves valid, it would herald major changes in how encyclopedias function. The question remains: can artificial intelligence truly create an encyclopedia that stands as an authoritative and trustworthy source of knowledge?

The purpose of our study is to identify the distinctive features of Grokipedia as an alternative to Wikipedia and to form initial impressions of it as an encyclopedic resource and a source of knowledge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study employs a selective analytical approach. Its focus consists of the article “Ukraine” from Grokipedia (https://grokipedia.com/page/Ukraine) and its counterpart on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine). For additional context, the article “Russia” from Grokipedia (https://grokipedia.com/page/Russia) was also examined. All three articles were accessed on October 28, 2025. The texts are in English, and it is worth noting that Grokipedia currently exists as a monolingual resource. The distinctive features of Grokipedia are identified by directly comparing these articles, which makes it possible to detect characteristic patterns in the structure, content, and manner of presenting information in Grokipedia in contrast to another online encyclopedia.

The analysis encompasses several interrelated levels:

– The structural and compositional level, which considers text organization, scope, linguistic and stylistic features, and the presence or absence of multimedia.

– The factual level, which compares substantive overlaps and discrepancies, including differences in the interpretation of events and phenomena.

– The narrative and ideological level, which evaluates historico-political interpretations across three thematic areas:

• Representations of the Kievan Rus’ era, including emphases, objectivity, and potential biases;
• Coverage of Ukraine’s path to independence in 1991, including narrative framing and value-driven interpretations;
• Presentation of Russia’s current war against Ukraine, including narrative construction, sourcing practices, and whether propagandistic elements are present.

The research framework draws on methodological approaches validated in our earlier studies (Zhelezniak and Ishchenko, 2023). The primary method of inquiry is comparative content analysis, supplemented by aspects of critical discourse analysis. This combination enables us to examine not only structural, linguistic, and stylistic differences, but also factual distinctions and underlying worldview strategies in the representation of knowledge. This approach allows us to form initial conclusions about the epistemological character of Grokipedia as an encyclopedia generated by artificial intelligence.

Content Analysis (Structural-Compositional and Factual Levels)

The Grokipedia article offers a broad and detailed overview of Ukraine, covering its history, politics, economy, geography, and culture. It traces the country’s development from ancient settlements and Kyivan Rus’ to the achievement of independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The article gives substantial attention to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War and its impact on demographics, economic decline, governance issues, and efforts to combat corruption. It also describes Ukraine’s physical geography, climate, natural resources, and cultural heritage, including literature, visual arts, architecture, and the complexities of language policy. Structurally, the article follows an extensive analytical format that combines traits of traditional encyclopedic writing with those of detailed informational reports. The main body consists of about 25,000 words, divided into thematic sections with subheadings. A notable characteristic is the high concentration of factual information and statistical data, including numerous numerical figures and extensive citations, creating an impression of credibility and evidentiary rigor. In‐text citations are formatted in square brackets, and the bibliography at the end lists only URLs without specifying authors, titles, or publication dates. The language is formal and analytical, marked by specialized terminology and complex sentence structures, and maintains a neutral tone. There is no accompanying multimedia such as images, maps, or diagrams.

Another noteworthy feature of this new encyclopedia is the complete absence of hyperlinks to other entries within the platform. This significantly weakens the internal coherence of the publication, since scholars note that a networked organization of knowledge is one of the defining stages in the evolution of encyclopedias, beginning with cross-references in Diderot and d’Alembert’s edition (van Ewijk, 2011, p. 206). These cross-references transformed the encyclopedia from a static “tree of knowledge” into a dynamic network, enabling its expansion. In contemporary digital encyclopedias, hyperlinks perform this function by automatically enriching the text with contextual connections to relevant knowledge pages, allowing key concepts to be linked to their corresponding encyclopedia entries (Mihalcea and Csomai, 2007). They are not merely convenient navigation tools but a fundamental characteristic of modern online encyclopedias that supports the structured organization of knowledge. The absence of internal links in Grokipedia may reflect technical limitations of its content-generation algorithm, which may currently be unable to establish ontological connections among articles, or it may simply be a temporary condition related to the early stage of the project’s development.

The Wikipedia article likewise provides a broad overview of Ukraine’s history, geography, politics, and culture. It emphasizes Ukraine’s status as the second largest country in Europe by area and traces its complex and often contested history from early Slavic settlements through the flourishing of Kyivan Rus’ and onward through centuries of influence and domination by neighboring empires. Central themes include the tragedy of the Holodomor, the immense losses of World War II, and the achievement of independence in 1991, followed by a transition toward democracy hindered by ongoing Russian aggression, including the annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion of 2022. The article also covers geographical characteristics, economic challenges such as corruption, Ukraine’s role as a major global grain exporter, and its diverse cultural traditions shaped by both Eastern and Western influences. Structurally, the article follows the standard Wikipedia format, clearly organized into sections with subheadings. Its main body comprises roughly 18,000 to 20,000 words and is supported by multimedia materials including maps, tables, illustrations, and diagrams. It contains an extensive referencing system with footnotes throughout the text and concludes with a comprehensive bibliography that provides full citation details. The language is formal and informative, and any ambiguous or disputed claims are explicitly marked with notes such as “needs citation” or “failed verification.”

In sum, comparing the Ukraine articles in the two online encyclopedias shows that they are structurally similar in their organizational principles, thematic scope, and general approach to presenting material, yet they differ in terms of factual precision and interpretive strategy. Both texts provide a comprehensive overview of the country, covering history, geography, politics, and culture, but they follow different methodological logics. The Wikipedia article adheres to a standardized encyclopedic format with a clear structure, a transparent citation system, and multimedia support. Grokipedia, by contrast, tends toward a more analytical narrative, dense with facts and statistics, but offers less clarity in verifying the information presented.

Discourse Analysis (Narrative-Ideological Level)

Both articles share common narrative elements related to the origins of Ukrainian statehood, the Cossack era, the cultural awakening of the nineteenth century, the traumas of the twentieth century such as the Holodomor and political repressions, the consolidation of national identity after 1991, and its strengthening through the transformative events of 2014 and 2022. The differences between the two articles emerge mainly through their perspectives and emphases. To demonstrate this, we compare how each represents the historical formation of Ukrainian identity. This topic often becomes subject to political manipulation, factual distortion, and disinformation, including within encyclopedic sources. Scholars, for instance, have pointed to inaccuracies concerning Ukrainian history in the English-language reference work History: The Definitive Visual Guide, where Kyivan Rus’ is presented as part of Russian rather than Ukrainian history, and Russia’s current war is characterized as a “special military operation” (Ishchenko and Stepanenko, 2024, p. 35).

Grokipedia does not deny the historical continuity between Ukraine and Rus’, but it places less emphasis on viewing this legacy as uniquely Ukrainian, instead favoring a polyethnic and polycentric interpretation. This contrasts with approaches that present Rus’ more explicitly as a cultural and historical continuum specific to Ukraine. As M. Hrushevsky argued, “The Kyivan state, its legal traditions, and its culture arose from a single Ukrainian-Rus’ people. The Kyivan period did not continue into the Vladimir-Muscovite stage, from which Muscovy (the Grand Duchy of Moscow) and later the Russian Empire trace their lineage, but rather into the Galician-Volhynian period of the thirteenth century, and then into the Lithuanian-Polish era of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries” (2002, p. 78). Additionally, Grokipedia interprets the etymology of the name “Ukraine” as “borderland,” introducing a notion of marginality that complicates the idea of historical continuity centered on Kyiv as the former heart of Rus’, implicitly inviting the paradoxical notion of how a historical center could be treated as a borderland in the first place.

While Grokipedia highlights the polyethnic character of Rus’ without establishing a clear distinction between center and periphery, Wikipedia presents Rus’ as the cradle of East Slavic culture and one of the most powerful states in Europe. The baptism of 988 is described as a pivotal moment that set an Orthodox-Byzantine cultural trajectory, formalized literacy through the Cyrillic tradition, and enabled the development of chronicles and legal norms. Within this framework, Kyiv appears as the geographical and cultural core of Rus’, from which cultural and institutional traditions spread outward. This perspective reinforces a historical and legal-cultural continuity between Rus’ and the Ukrainian lands.

In summary, Grokipedia frames the history of Rus’ in broad and generalized polyethnic terms, which in the context of the article on Ukraine weakens the historical link between Rus’ and the Ukrainian people. Wikipedia, by contrast, places stronger emphasis on the specifically Ukrainian dimension by highlighting Kyiv’s role as the center of East Slavic civilization and as the carrier of institutional and cultural continuity. This approach makes the connection between Rus’ and the modern Ukrainian state more explicit and coherent.

For a deeper analysis, we also examined the Grokipedia article “Russia,” which includes a section on Kyivan Rus’. In this case, Grokipedia presents a far clearer and more linear concept of succession for Russia. The history of Kyivan Rus’ is portrayed as an unbroken continuum leading directly to the emergence of the Muscovite principality and later the Russian Empire. The pivotal moment is described as the “revival of pan-Rus’ claims” in the fourteenth century, when Moscow is said to have assumed the role of the unifying center of Eastern Christianity. Ivan III is cast as the figure symbolizing the official restoration of “one Rus’,” while Ivan IV legitimizes his authority by invoking a lineage from Byzantium, embedded in the concept of the “Third Rome.” Through this framing, Grokipedia constructs an unquestioned sequence of historical continuity from Kyiv to Moscow to St. Petersburg, thereby negating the possibility of a distinct Ukrainian inheritance of Rus’ and relegating it to a minor episode within a broader “Russian civilization” (Pax Rossica).

We then turn to interpretations of Ukraine’s modern state-building. Both encyclopedias record Ukraine’s declaration of independence on August 24, 1991, in the context of the Soviet Union’s collapse, although neither uses the formulation “restoration of independence,” which would imply direct continuity from the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In Wikipedia, 1991 appears as the final stage of the Soviet period and is explicitly linked to the developments of 1917 to 1921 (UNR to Ukrainian SSR to independence). Grokipedia, on the other hand, places emphasis on contemporary legitimation: the Declaration of Independence was endorsed by a nationwide referendum, which allowed for the rejection of the Soviet-imperial framework and the establishment of a new sovereign political community. The differences between the two encyclopedias become more visible in their treatment of the events of 2014. Wikipedia depicts the Revolution of Dignity as an internal democratic transformation that set Ukraine firmly on a Western-oriented trajectory. Grokipedia, by contrast, presents a wider array of interpretations, including references to external influences on the Maidan and competing claims related to the Minsk agreements, ultimately obscuring the ideological foundations of Ukrainians’ protest and their aspirations for societal renewal.

The two texts show marked differences in emphasis and detail regarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity, especially with respect to the status of Crimea. Both encyclopedias unambiguously treat Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea as a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Grokipedia combines a legal evaluation with additional contentious material: it reproduces Russian arguments such as “protection of Russians” and “historical claims,” cites figures from the so-called referendum, yet also acknowledges the lack of international observers, serious methodological flaws, and the referendum’s incompatibility with Ukraine’s Constitution. This ostensibly “pluralistic” presentation of information, seemingly motivated by a desire to demonstrate comprehensiveness and balance of perspectives, nonetheless introduces ideological skew or at least informational noise that weakens the clarity of the legal assessment.

Wikipedia takes a more concise and categorical stance. It describes Russia’s actions as an “illegal occupation and annexation,” bases this position on international law and statements from international institutions, briefly references the role of the “little green men,” and avoids contested arguments or rhetorical framing aligned with the Russian narrative. This approach eliminates extraneous material and reinforces the clarity and unequivocal nature of the legal conclusion, particularly in the context of violations of the Budapest Memorandum.

The differing portrayals of Russia’s war against Ukraine become clear when comparing the Grokipedia articles “Russia” and “Ukraine.” In the article about Russia, the war is framed as a defensive action intended to prevent “NATO expansion” and “threats from the West,” and the Euromaidan protests are characterized as an “unconstitutional coup.” This framing casts the war as a justified response. In contrast, the article on Ukraine defines the war as unprovoked Russian aggression. The Russian article also invokes a narrative of protecting “Russian-speaking populations” and emphasizes the supposed necessity of Ukraine’s “demilitarization and denazification.” The Ukrainian article counters this by identifying these arguments as propagandistic rhetoric, framing them as devices meant to justify efforts to dismantle Ukrainian statehood and reassert neo-imperial control. The Russian article highlights claims of “economic resilience” and “successful offensives” in 2025, whereas the Ukrainian article focuses on humanitarian consequences, extensive destruction, loss of life, and reliance on international assistance. Both accounts acknowledge that the conflict has developed into a protracted war of attrition.

In sum, comparing Grokipedia with Wikipedia shows that the newer platform tends to rely on broad generalizations and a wide range of interpretations of events and phenomena, often introducing alternative viewpoints that may not be fully warranted. While this approach increases the density of factual material, it also makes it more difficult to maintain consistency in presenting verified information and constructing a coherent body of knowledge. Knowledge is not simply an accumulation of facts and assorted interpretations; it requires structure, coherence, and scholarly logic to develop a unified understanding of the subject.

Wikipedia, by contrast, uses clearer definitions, focuses on interpretations that are genuinely meaningful, employs a systematic citation framework, and adheres to consistent formatting standards. These features help ensure greater precision, reliability, and overall coherence of the information it provides.

A comparison of the two Grokipedia articles on overlapping topics further highlights the internal tension within the encyclopedia between conflicting viewpoints and a general lack of consistency in interpreting historical events, phenomena, and facts. For example, when examining explanations of the Russo-Ukrainian War, we see that each article presents a narrative aligned with one side or the other, without any attempt to synthesize them or arrive at an independent, unified interpretation. One might argue that this approach seeks to achieve a form of neutrality, since it does not consistently advocate a single position but instead generates context-dependent viewpoints that appear “balanced.” However, this practice significantly reduces the encyclopedia’s heuristic value and weakens cognitive clarity. In this case, the result is a blurring of responsibility for the war and a dilution of the moral and legal asymmetry between aggressor and victim. This stance is supported by the extensive source base, which allows almost any interpretation to be validated through selective citation. This tendency extends beyond the Ukrainian-Russian thematic domain. It was also documented in the large-scale empirical analysis of Grokipedia carried out by Triedman and Mantzarlis (2025), who examined the entire corpus of articles against the English-language Wikipedia.

A brief review of sources used in the Grokipedia articles “Russia” and “Ukraine” confirms this tendency. Each article contains more than 400 references, yet the distribution of domains is revealing. The article on Ukraine includes 35 sources from Ukrainian domains (.ua) and only 4 from Russian domains (.ru), while the article on Russia contains 43 sources from .ru domains and only 4 from .ua. This symmetrical ratio of “four sources from the other side” is unlikely to be accidental. It suggests that the algorithm may automatically include a minimal number of contrarian sources to simulate the appearance of balanced objectivity. Since the overall corpus of references is extensive, it merits further academic examination. This is especially relevant for the article on Russia, whose source base could provide valuable material for studying the dissemination of Russian propaganda narratives in European and U.S. information spaces.

Online encyclopedias, which are becoming increasingly diverse in form and content as digital technologies advance, continue to serve “as a source where one can not only seek information but also verify data for truthfulness and reliability” (Tereszkiewicz, 2010, p. 41). In this respect, Wikipedia appears as a natural continuation of the classical encyclopedic tradition, although it also differs from traditional encyclopedias so distinctly that some scholars regard it as a quasi-encyclopedia rather than a true encyclopedia (Zhelezniak, 2020, p. 16). Grokipedia, despite its technological innovation and potential competitiveness, is still perceived primarily as an experimental platform for testing new approaches to structuring encyclopedic knowledge.

“In times of disinformation, encyclopedias ensure cognitive resilience, meaning society’s capacity to distinguish facts from manipulation while preserving linguistic and cultural heritage” (Bentzen, 2023, p. 143). For this reason, professional online encyclopedias prepared by experts in relevant fields gain particular importance today. Resources such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Store Norske Leksikon, Enciclopedia Treccani in Italy, and other national and universal encyclopedias serve as the most trustworthy guides in the information environment. In Bentzen’s view, knowledge institutions, including professional encyclopedias, function as crucial components of the knowledge infrastructure that underpins the informational resilience of democratic societies (2023, p. 146). As she observes, “In the battle between democracy and authoritarianism, knowledge has become a key battleground” (2023, p. 144).

CONCLUSIONS

Technological innovations in encyclopedia-making do not in themselves guarantee improvements in the quality and reliability of knowledge representation. Such improvements depend primarily on rigorous editorial standards, strong fact-checking procedures, and the consistent application of scholarly principles in the selection and presentation of information. Delegating these responsibilities entirely to artificial intelligence may increase efficiency, but it is unlikely to provide the depth, precision, and accountability required for genuine encyclopedic work.

Our comparison of the Grokipedia and Wikipedia articles on Ukraine reveals no meaningful advantages in favor of Grokipedia. On the contrary, the Grokipedia article, generated by artificial intelligence, shows weaker methodological handling of its material. Its approach lacks clearly defined editorial standards, transparent mechanisms for verifying accuracy, and sufficient quality control.

While the Grokipedia article displays broader pluralism in the interpretation of events and facts, this diversity of viewpoints, absent explicit criteria for their selection, risks becoming disorienting. Presenting conflicting or marginal interpretations under the banner of “comprehensiveness” blurs the line between factual knowledge and opinion, reducing the conceptual clarity of the text. In an era of information turbulence, the way historical narratives are presented carries not only intellectual but also socio-political weight. Here, the distinction between a concise legal interpretation and a compilation of competing assessments becomes a question of value-based responsibility, in which the role of human experts is essential.

Our comparison of the Grokipedia articles “Russia” and “Ukraine” further indicates that the platform’s editorial model is based on the coexistence of separate national narratives rather than on the development of a unified encyclopedic perspective. In this structure, incompatible interpretations persist in parallel, whether concerning historical succession from Kyivan Rus’ or explanations for the origins and character of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Instead of integrating objective knowledge, this approach aggregates distinct national viewpoints, each grounded in its own assumptions and justificatory frameworks.

The lack of a clearly articulated editorial model and the absence of identifiable authorship weakens trust in Grokipedia’s content. Wikipedia, by contrast, counterbalances author anonymity with a transparent infrastructure for public oversight. Every edit is recorded, discussed, and, when necessary, corrected by the community. This process creates shared accountability and a mechanism for collective quality control. Grokipedia, lacking such systems of verification and documentation, currently provides no comparable tools to ensure trust and oversight.

The classical encyclopedic tradition, based on formalization, verifiability, and systematicity, remains a cornerstone of cultural and informational security. New forms of encyclopedic knowledge can be valuable only if they reinforce the fundamental principles of reliability, neutrality, and responsibility. In other words, digital transformation must be accompanied by explicit epistemological principles, without which maintaining trust in encyclopedic knowledge becomes difficult.

In its current state, Grokipedia does not introduce meaningful conceptual innovations in the dissemination of knowledge in the humanities and social sciences that would set it apart from existing platforms. Rather, it appears as an attempt by influential actors to create an alternative resource alongside those that already operate effectively within the open knowledge ecosystem. At the same time, it is increasingly evident that artificial intelligence has much greater potential in areas where knowledge is formalized and verifiable, such as the exact, natural, and technical sciences. In these fields, stable definitions, measurable data, and unambiguous outcomes prevail, shielding algorithmic synthesis from subjective interpretation. It is precisely here that machine-based encyclopedics may become a powerful tool for automated updating, factual structuring, and the systematization of knowledge.