Grokipedia Stopped Reviewing Edits in April. It Didn’t Tell Anyone. | Lawfare
The upcoming main navigation can be gotten through utilizing the tab key. Any buttons that open a sub navigation can be triggered by the space or enter key.
Search Lawfare
Search
Advanced Search
Renée DiResta
@noUpside
noupside.bsky.social
Ronald Robertson
Meet The Authors
Subscribe to Lawfare
Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated reference systems are on their way to becoming a significant part of the infrastructure of public knowledge. Grokipedia, the encyclopedia xAI launched in October 2025 as a machine-written alternative to Wikipedia, is the clearest current example: Its entries are drafted and maintained by a large language model that decides not only what to write but also when to edit itself.<br>That is why it matters that Grokipedia appears not to have updated any articles since April 24. The encyclopedia stopped editing itself and processing suggested edits from humans. As far as we can tell, no entry has changed in more than three months.<br>What’s Happening With Grokipedia?<br>Grokipedia launched on Oct. 27, 2025, with roughly 885,000 machine-generated articles.<br>Elon Musk positioned it as a competitor to Wikipedia with a Musk-inflected approach to reputable sources. Today, according to its landing page, it has over 6 million articles.<br>Readers can suggest changes to Grokipedia’s AI-authored articles through a form on the site. The model is supposed to review each submission, which then moves through a visible queue: beginning with “in review,” followed by “approved” or “rejected,” and finally “implemented.” Each article includes a public log of suggestions and their dispositions. Earlier this year, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism documented that Grok increasingly edits its own articles, with model-authored changes overtaking human ones around January 2026<br>As one of us was observing change requests submitted to the site, we noticed that some edits had been sitting in the “in review” queue for more than six weeks. Grokipedia had previously made decisions quite quickly—sometimes in minutes, according to the Tow Center’s data.<br>At first, we wondered whether the AI was avoiding sensitive topics. To test that possibility, we submitted an uncomplicated factual update: SpaceX has recently launched its initial public offering (IPO). Grokipedia had not added this extensively sourced, indisputable fact to the SpaceX page. We observed that other users had suggested this edit as well; their requests were also “in review,” some since the day after the June 12 IPO.<br>We then examined the most popular pages, reasoning that if anything moved through the queue, we would likely see it there. Because Grokipedia provides view counts on individual pages but offers no site-wide ranking leaderboard, we approximated one using the site’s own search-suggestion (typeahead) feature, which returns, for any queried word, the most-viewed pages whose titles contain it. For example, if you type “The ” into the search bar, the first two suggestions are “The Beatles” and “Alexander the Great,” both of which have over 4.7 million views. Using the 10,000 most common words in Grokipedia page titles (obtained from the 5.9 million pages listed in the site map) gave us over 300,000 pages. Like many websites, its individual pages have a steep popularity curve. High-traffic entries on topics such as Elon Musk, ChatGPT, Donald Trump, Taylor Swift, World War II, and Bitcoin draw millions of views, while millions of minor pages sit in a zero-visit long tail.<br>But neither popular nor unpopular pages seemed to be updating. On ChatGPT’s entry, 12 edits submitted on April 24 were approved the same day, and every edit submitted afterward—May, June, and July—remains “in review.” The same pattern holds across topics and traffic levels; the largest political entries on the site (across both parties) and a second-division football club are both stalled, which is difficult to reconcile with a content- or topic-specific explanation.<br>In our subsequent analysis of 34,519 pages with at least one suggested edit in our sample, containing a total of 225,496 recommended edits, we found no accepted or rejected corrections dated within the past three months.<br>We also revisited the Tow Center’s report, which documents edits on the encyclopedia from October 2025 through January. Comparing edit requests recorded during the center’s study to the same pages today reveals a second issue: a large set of edits that were once listed as “accepted” now appear as “rejected.”<br>A mass rewrite of the encyclopedia seems to have happened on March 14. Because user suggestions are anchored to specific text selections (“Highlighted sections”), the rewrite appears to have broken the...