February 22, 2026
Wikipedia vs. Wish.com
An Unbothered Jimmy Wales Calls Grokipedia a 'Cartoon Imitation' of Wikipedia
Fans Crown Wikipedia, Roast Elon’s ‘Cartoon’ Clone as Internet’s Dollar-Store Encyclopedia
TLDR: Jimmy Wales shrugged off Elon Musk’s Grokipedia as a “cartoon imitation” of Wikipedia, and commenters largely agreed, ripping it as less accurate, harder to read, and hilariously glitchy. A few users say it sometimes covers topics Wikipedia doesn’t, but most treat it as a political toy, not a serious encyclopedia.
Jimmy Wales just casually called Elon Musk’s Grokipedia a “cartoon imitation” of Wikipedia, and the internet absolutely ran with it. Commenters are treating it like a low-budget knockoff, comparing it to the long-mocked “Conservapedia” where reality gets edited to fit politics. One user joked that Grokipedia only shines on topics where “observable fact” and ideology break up and never speak again.
The crowd’s main vibe: Wikipedia is the grown-up in the room, Grokipedia is the kid scribbling in crayon. People slam Grokipedia as less accurate, messy to read, and basically useless on normal, non-political topics. One commenter roasted it by saying that if it ever becomes readable, some folks might be willing to ignore how wrong it is—just to avoid being offended by Wikipedia. Others aren’t even bothering: one user proudly touts a search feature that just bans “worthless sites like Grokipedia” from ever showing up.
But it’s not a total pile-on. A few admit Grokipedia sometimes covers figures that Wikipedia has wiped entirely, calling it weird that a guy talked about daily on Twitter has no page. Still, the horror stories land hardest: one user searched a historic witch-hunting book and halfway through the article it suddenly turned into a write-up about a metal album. Verdict from the comments section? Entertaining, maybe—but as an encyclopedia, it’s pure cartoon energy.
Key Points
- •Jimmy Wales said at India’s AI Impact Summit that he does not see Grokipedia as a serious threat to Wikipedia, calling it “a cartoon imitation of an encyclopedia.”
- •Wales argued that Wikipedia’s strength lies in its human-vetted knowledge, produced by volunteer editors, and said the site would not let AI write its articles.
- •He highlighted AI “hallucinations” — erroneous or misleading outputs — as a key reason AI systems are unsuitable for directly authoring encyclopedia content.
- •The article cites a 2025 OpenAI study indicating that even advanced AI models can hallucinate at rates up to 79% in certain tests.
- •Wales emphasized that human subject-matter experts provide rich context and understanding, which he considers essential for accurately meeting readers’ informational needs.