Elon Musk’s Grokipedia contains copied/ripped Wikipedia pages

 Elon Musk’s Grokipedia contains copied Wikipedia pages | The Verge

Elon Musk’s Grokipedia contains copied Wikipedia pages


Some of Grokipedia’s pages say that content is ‘adapted’ from Wikipedia.
by Jay Peters


Oct 27, 2025, 5:46 PM PDT


6464Comments (All New)


Image: Grokipedia

Jay Peters


is a senior reporter covering technology, gaming, and more. He joined The Verge in 2019 after nearly two years at Techmeme.


xAI’s Grokipedia, its Wikipedia-like online encyclopedia, is now live. The similarities go deeper than expected.


Grokipedia’s design is pretty basic right now; like Wikipedia, the homepage is mostly just a big search bar, and entries resemble very basic Wikipedia entries, with headings, subheadings, and citations. I haven’t seen any photos on the site yet. Wikipedia lets users edit pages, but it doesn’t appear that users can currently do that on Grokipedia; a big edit button at the top only appeared on a few pages for me, and when I clicked the button, it only showed edits that had already been completed without specifying who is actually suggested or made the changes, and I wasn’t able to suggest changes of my own.


Entries also claim that Grok has fact-checked them — a controversial idea, given how large language models tend to make up false “facts” — and how long ago the “fact check” happened.

Screenshot: Grokipedia


However, despite Elon Musk promising that Grokipedia would be a “massive improvement” over Wikipedia, some articles appear to be cribbing information from Wikipedia. At the bottom of the page for the MacBook Air, for example, you can see this message: “The content is adapted from Wikipedia, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.” In some cases, the cribbing goes farther than a rewrite: I’ve also seen that message on pages for the PlayStation 5 and the Lincoln Mark VIII, and both of those pages are almost identical — word-for-word, line-for-line — to their Wikipedia counterparts.


“Even Grokipedia needs Wikipedia to exist,” Lauren Dickinson, a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia tells The Verge. You can read Dickinson’s full statement in full at the end of this article.

Image: Wikipedia (left), Grokipedia (right)

Image: Wikipedia (left), Grokipedia (right)


It’s not the first time xAI’s AI has been caught pointing to Wikipedia; last month, in response to an X user pointing out that Grok cites Wikipedia pages, Musk said that “we should have this fixed by end of year.”


Not all Grokipedia articles are based directly on Wikipedia ones, and some will be controversial.


While both sites have articles on climate change, for example, Wikipedia’s page points out that “There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the climate is warming and that this is caused by human activities. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.”


In Grokipedia’s entry, meanwhile, the word “unanimous” only appears in one paragraph: “Critics contend that claims of near-unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic causes dominating recent climate change overstate agreement due to selective categorization in literature reviews.” It suggests that the media and advocacy organizations like Greenpeace are “contributing to heightened public alarm,” and are part of “coordinated efforts to frame the issue as an existential imperative, influencing public discourse and policy without always grounding in proportionate empirical evidence.”


According to a ticker at the bottom of the homepage, Grokipedia has over 885,000 articles; Wikipedia currently maintains around 7 million English pages. However, this is an early version of Grokipedia — it has a v0.1 version number on the homepage.

RelatedWikipedia is under attack — and how it can survive


Here is Dickinson’s full statement:



We’re still in the process of understanding how Grokipedia works.

Since 2001, Wikipedia has been the backbone of knowledge on the internet. Hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, it remains the only top website in the world run by a nonprofit. Unlike newer projects, Wikipedia’s strengths are clear: it has transparent policies, rigorous volunteer oversight, and a strong culture of continuous improvement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written to inform billions of readers without promoting a particular point of view.

Wikipedia’s knowledge is – and always will be – human. Through open collaboration and consensus, people from all backgrounds build a neutral, living record of human understanding – one that reflects our diversity and collective curiosity. This human-created knowledge is what AI companies rely on to generate content; even Grokipedia needs Wikipedia to exist.

Wikipedia’s nonprofit independence — with no ads and no data-selling — also sets it apart from for-profit alternatives. All of these strengths have kept Wikipedia a top trusted resource for more than two decades.

Many experiments to create alternative versions of Wikipedia have happened before; it doesn’t interfere with our work or mission. As we approach Wikipedia’s 25th anniversary, Wikipedia will continue focusing on providing free, trustworthy knowledge built by its dedicated volunteer community. For more information about how Wikipedia works, visit our website and new blog series.

Sao Paulo Grand Prix: Lewis Hamilton describes his first season at Ferrari as 'a nightmare' - BBC Sport

Sao Paulo Grand Prix: Lewis Hamilton describes his first season at Ferrari as 'a nightmare' - BBC Sport

Hamilton's first season at Ferrari 'a nightmare'

Image source,Getty Images

Image caption,

Lewis Hamilton is yet to finish on the podium for Ferrari

ByAlicia Turner

BBC Sport

Published
9 November 2025
611 Comments

Lewis Hamilton said his first season at Ferrari had been "a nightmare" after he retired from the Sao Paulo Grand Prix.

The seven-time world champion was hit by the Williams of Carlos Sainz on the first lap, before misjudging an attempted overtake on Alpine's Franco Colapinto at the start of lap two.

That resulted in front wing damage which was quickly replaced during a pit stop, but he was left lacking pace with a damaged floor.

Hamilton was given a five-second penalty for the incident with Colapinto and eventually retired from last position on lap 39.

Briton Hamilton is yet to finish on the podium for Ferrari, although he had a dominant victory in the sprint race at the Chinese Grand Prix in March. He is sixth in the drivers' championship.

"This is a nightmare, and I have been living it for a while. The flip between the dream of driving for this amazing team and the nightmare of the results we have had, the ups and downs, it's challenging," Hamilton told Sky Sports.

Canada weighs F-35 and Gripen fleet, seeks industrial return

Canada weighs F-35 and Gripen fleet, seeks industrial return

Canada delays F-35 decision as Ottawa weighs Gripen option and industrial return

ByClement Charpentreau

October 19, 2025, 14:44 (UTC +3)

24 comments

Defense

Soos Jozsef / Shutterstock.com

Canada’s long-delayed F-35A fighter jet program is facing renewed uncertainty as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government weighs whether to proceed with its planned fleet of 88 aircraft from Lockheed Martin or diversify toward a mixed fleet that could include Saab’s Gripen E.

The Liberal government first announced in March 2025 that it would “review” the purchase, citing heightened trade and diplomatic tensions with the United States. The move came as Canada was entering an election campaign.

Following his re-election, Carney has advocated for greater “diversification” in Ottawa’s defense and industrial partnerships. That stance was underscored by a new defense and trade cooperation framework signed with the European Union in June 2025.

Decision still pending

Canada’s F-35 saga dates back to July 2010, when then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government announced plans to buy 65 F-35As for CAD 9 billion ($6.5 billion), arguing the aircraft was essential for national defense and Arctic sovereignty.

The decision quickly drew controversy. During the 2015 election, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau vowed to cancel the sole-source deal, accusing the Conservatives of bypassing competition and committing to an “unnecessary and expensive fighter.” After taking office, Trudeau’s government confirmed it would seek alternatives.

That pledge led to the launch of the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) in 2017, an open competition to replace the CF-18s. Several manufacturers initially participated, including Boeing with the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault Aviation with the Rafale, and Airbus with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Dassault withdrew in 2018, citing interoperability and security concerns linked to Canada’s participation in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, while Airbus followed in 2019, arguing the competition’s terms favored Lockheed Martin. In 2021, Boeing’s Super Hornet bid was also disqualified for undisclosed reasons.

In 2022, the Department of National Defence selected the F-35A over Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E/F, and Ottawa formally notified an initial order for 16 aircraft in January 2023. However, the remainder of the 88-jet fleet remains unconfirmed.

A final decision was initially expected by the end of the summer, yet Carney’s office has not announced any outcome. While the RCAF remains firmly in favor of the F-35, key cabinet figures, including Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly, have raised concerns about the contract’s economic balance.

RELATED

US warns Canada of ‘serious consequences’ if F-35 deal collapses

Military urges urgency

During a recent parliamentary hearing, Deputy Minister of National Defence Stefanie Beck defended the F-35 acquisition, arguing that fifth-generation capabilities are essential to maintain parity with adversaries.

“It is impossible to underestimate the importance of having fifth-generation aircraft because that is what our adversaries have,” Beck said, pointing to Russia’s Su-57 and China’s J-20 and J-35 fighters.

RCAF Commander General Jamie Speiser-Blanchet echoed that warning, noting that both countries field advanced aircraft and high-speed missile systems. “It is urgent to transition to a new fleet of fighters,” she said.

Economic pressures mount

Despite military backing, the F-35’s ballooning costs remain contentious. A 2024 report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) estimated that the total acquisition cost had increased by at least 46% since 2022, reaching CAD 27.7 billion ($20 billion).

Joly has since pressed Lockheed Martin to provide additional industrial benefits or risk seeing the order scaled down.

“Ottawa could obtain further commitments from Lockheed Martin in exchange for maintaining the 88-fighter contract,” Joly said in an interview on October 12, 2025. “Otherwise, the government could procure fewer F-35s and complement them with Gripen Es assembled in Canada.”

Joly added that her priority was ensuring taxpayers’ money “reduces dependence on the United States and creates jobs in Canada.”

Debate over a mixed fleet

The proposal to split procurement between the F-35 and Gripen faces strong resistance from defense officials. According to a study cited by Reuters in August 2025, the military warned that maintaining two fighter fleets would be “inefficient from an operational standpoint.”

Joly dismissed that view, arguing that “all G7 countries have mixed fleets” and that Canada should pursue a similar model.

“My objective is to obtain more industrial value from Lockheed Martin while continuing discussions with Saab,” Joly concluded.

Canada and Sweden signed a major aerospace and defence partnership in August 2025, with Ottawa and Stockholm pledging joint research, technology development, and industrial cooperation. The agreement emphasised Arctic security as a shared priority amid rising Russian activity and alliance realignments in the High North.

Jack Nicklaus wins $50m lawsuit after ex-partners question his mental state

Jack Nicklaus wins $50m lawsuit after ex-partners question his mental state

James Corrigan

Tue, October 21, 2025 at 6:20 AM PDT

A Florida jury took just four hours to side with Jack Nicklaus - Reuters/Thomas Cordy

Jack Nicklaus has been awarded $50m in damages after former business partners questioned his mental state for entering what they alleged were $750m negotiations to become the figurehead of LIV Golf.

A jury sided with the 85-year-old who will receive a cheque worth more than five times his entire on-course earnings in a 45-year career as arguably golf’s greatest player.

The Florida jury took four hours on Monday to determine that Nicklaus’s reputation had been damaged after he was subjected to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust, distrust and contempt”.

He was pictured smiling and shaking hands with his lawyers at the back of the court when the unanimous verdict was delivered.

The golfer believes an unimpeachable image as the game’s cherished “Golden Bear” has been restored after a saga that, in various forms, ran for almost a decade.

The dispute essentially began in 2017 when Nicklaus, the 18-time major champion, resigned from Nicklaus Companies. The firm was set up a decade before and handed the golfer $145m for exclusive rights to his course design services and marketing, promotional and branding rights.

A clause prevented Nicklaus from designing courses in his own right for five years, but when this non-compete condition expired in 2022, Nicklaus Companies – owned by billionaire banker Howard Milstein – sued Nicklaus for breach of contract. This effectively failed, but Nicklaus and his legal team took issue with statements made in the action – primarily about the nature of his discussions with the Saudis – and launched their own lawsuit.

“What was important in the dispute was when the company told the world Jack was selling out the PGA Tour for Saudi golf, when it was not true,” Nicklaus’s attorney, Eugene Stearns, told ESPN. “We are happy that Jack has been vindicated.”

Nicklaus accused his former company of feeding false claims to media outlets and claiming he was not mentally fit to manage his business affairs and was suffering from dementia. “What they said was, ‘you need to have the keys taken away’,” Stearns said.

Nicklaus’s legal team told the court at no point had he pursued a deal with the Saudi funders of LIV, the breakaway league which has ripped up the sport’s landscape since launching in 2022.

Court documents said he met with the Golf Saudi organisation in 2021 as part of negotiations to design a golf course in the Kingdom. Yet it was only during that meeting that Nicklaus discovered they wanted him for the leadership role with LIV Golf, with the defendants mooting a $750m fee. If that scenario had come to pass it would have caused huge ructions throughout the game, but the golfer is adamant the answer would always be no.

“According to Nicklaus, he had no interest in the offer and declined because he felt the PGA Tour was an important part of his legacy” the court documents said. “And if the PGA Tour was not in favour of a new league, he did not want to be involved.”

Greg Norman was appointed to lead LIV Golf in its formative years, with Nicklaus expressing his belief that LIV and the ensuing split was not good for the game.

However, since the PGA Tour entered peace talks with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund in 2023 – negotiations that have still to bear fruit – Nicklaus has largely kept himself out of the debate. He will obviously be praying this is the end of the controversy, with Stearns adding: “It was an unfortunate incident but hopefully now it’s over.”

Nicklaus has the right to use his own name, image and likeness, while Nicklaus Companies owns the trademarks it purchased and can continue to sell apparel and equipment with Nicklaus’s name, the “Golden Bear” moniker and logos.

The jury in this latest lawsuit cleared Milstein and another Nicklaus Companies executive, Andrew O’Brien, of personal liability.

Why is the America’s Cup Partnership such a big deal? (Or is it the beginning of the end....) - Yachting World

Why is the America’s Cup Partnership such a big deal? (Or is it the beginning of the end....) - Yachting World

Why is the America’s Cup Partnership such a big deal? (Or is it the beginning of the end….)

Matthew Sheahan
October 20, 2025
0shares



Back in August the Protocol for the 38th America’s Cup was finally agreed and signed. Within it were details of a major structural change to the America’s Cup: the formation of a new Partnership, but that was only finally agreed last week. Matt Sheahan analyses why it's important



TAGS:


Despite looking like another bland piece of America’s Cup politics and procedure, it is difficult to overstate the significance of the newly formed America’s Cup Partnership (ACP).

First revealed a few weeks ago in the 38th America’s Cup Protocol, the ACP changes fundamentally the way in which the Cup will be run in the next cycle and beyond.

And while there are good reasons for the change, it’s not going to be universally popular. In fact, this could be the most controversial Cup move in modern times, some say it could even be the beginning of the end for the Auld Mug as we know it.

Sir Ben Ainslie, who has played a major part in creating the ACP – and whose team Athena Racing represents the Royal Yacht Squadron, the Challengers of Record – says this is, “The biggest step change in the history of the Cup,” and that the ACP is, “Critical to the future success of the Cup.”

His opposite, Grant Dalton, CEO of Emirates Team New Zealand representing the Defenders, the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron is equally punchy. “If we hadn’t have done this it could have been pretty much the end of the Cup.”
Both are bold statements and both will raise plenty of comment and fierce debate.


RNZYS Commodore David Blakey and RYS Ltd’s Bertie Bicket shake hands, watched by Sir Ben Ainslie and Grant Dalton, to mark the signing of the Protocol for the 38th America’s Cup, in August 2025. Photo: Suellen Hurling / RNZYS / America’s Cup
Spreading the load

Traditionally, if you win the America’s Cup you take on the responsibility for putting on the next event once a Challenger has thrown down the gauntlet.

It’s a big obligation, both logistically and financially and puts huge pressure on both the Defenders and the club they represent, especially in multi-challenger Cup cycles where the burden of hosting an event that runs for months can place huge demands on infrastructure.

Covering the huge financial costs is made even harder as the short-term nature of a Cup cycle that lacks any detail makes it especially difficult for sponsors to justify putting their hands in their pockets.

This means that the time frame between America’s Cup matches inevitably gets drawn out, which in turn causes its own problems when it comes to maintaining public interest in the event. Filling these gaps with more events costs more money and so the problem continues to spiral.


The financial. burden of hosting multi-challenger Cups, such as the very successful 32nd Cup in Valencia, Spain in 2007, is significant. Photo: Jose Jordan/AFP via Getty Images

The ACP seeks to change this by sharing the logistical and financial burden with the other competitors.

In simple terms, under the new structure when a Challenger enters the America’s Cup it takes a place on the board that governs the event. From here the rules, the schedule, the venue selection and every other detail of the cycle is agreed and actioned.

Dalton and Ainslie argue that this creates future structure to the event around which hosting deals can be made for future venues along with long term sponsorship deals and other financial considerations.


They also argue that costs can be better controlled and talk of spending caps which they say would help to increase the number of future potential teams.
No longer unique?

All of which sounds positive, especially given that this is how SailGP, which was born out of the 2017 America’s Cup, is currently growing.


SailGP has succeeded in creating a commercially focussed, spectacle-driven circuit – but is that the right direction for the future of the America’s Cup? Photo: Felix Diemer for SailGP

But there are those that will argue that democratising the America’s Cup strikes at the heart of its foundation.

Commercialising it in this way, and running a Cup event every two years as has been suggested, risks turning it into another world championships of sailing and removes the winner-takes-all aspect that has drawn a steady stream of billionaires for 174 years.

The appeal and potential commercial benefit of winning the Cup and bringing it home could also be gone if hosting deals have been made for future cycles. This could also reduce the appeal and prestige of the Cup making it harder to raise finances.
Big money deals

But Dalton and Ainslie don’t see it this way.

“We would dearly have loved to be able to negotiate with Naples for two cycles,” says Dalton. “Their infrastructure bill is €180 million, but when you can only plan for one cycle you can’t do long broadcast deals and you can’t do long sponsor deals which is the well known Achilles heel of the Cup.

“So, in this commercial world – and knowing that our sport is niche – we knew it was time to make that move. And so along with the Challenger of Record with support from the New York Yacht Club we have been able to do it but it’s not been easy because there’s a lot of stakeholders to be satisfied.”

Ainslie agrees. “The challenge has been trying to convince stakeholders that this is the right move for the Cup,” he says.

“Initially there was quite a lot of resistance for many different reasons and it’s taken 12 months to get to this point. But as hard as it’s been, actually the conviction from Grant that this is what we should be doing has delivered at the end of the day.”















The America’s Cup has endured since 1851, as captured in this painting of America running to the finish line of the RYS Cup in Cowes. Will these new changes secure its future? Image: duncan1890 via Getty Images.

But these are big changes, and even Dalton has his concerns. “We knew that if we didn’t do anything then we might not have a Cup in 10 years time.

“So, in the end this was a call that we had to make but you won’t be able to convince me that we’re right yet, I think only time will tell.”