Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: An LLM-Based Audit of Political Neutrality along Ideologies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15146v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:49:49 GMT
• Title: Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: An LLM-Based Audit of Political Neutrality along Ideologies
• Abstract summary: We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia.<n>We analyse 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality.<n>We find both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups.
• Score: 5.742135983891038
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

Related papers

• LLMpedia: A Transparent Framework to Materialize an LLM's Encyclopedic Knowledge at Scale [10.223945061944521]
  LLMpedia generates encyclopedic articles entirely from parametric memory.<n>The verifiable true rate on Wikipedia-covered subjects is only 74.7%.<n>Unlike Grokipedia, every prompt, artifact, and evaluation verdict is publicly released.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T08:37:26Z)
• Is Grokipedia Right-Leaning? Comparing Political Framing in Wikipedia and Grokipedia on Controversial Topics [2.374078750219017]
  This paper presents a comparative analysis of Wikipedia and Grokipedia on well-established politically contested topics.<n>We find that semantic similarity between the two platforms decays across article sections and diverges more strongly on controversial topics than on randomly sampled ones.<n>We show that both encyclopedias predominantly exhibit left-leaning framings, although Grokipedia exhibits a more bimodal distribution with increased prominence of right-leaning content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T21:36:12Z)
• How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison [0.0]
  Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by Elon Musk's xAI, was presented as a response to perceived ideological and structural biases in Wikipedia.<n>This study undertakes a large-scale computational comparison of 1,800 matched article pairs between Grokipedia and Wikipedia.<n>Using metrics across lexical richness, readability, structural organization, reference density, and semantic similarity, we assess how closely the two platforms align in form and substance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T18:04:46Z)
• Can we cite Wikipedia? What if Wikipedia was more reliable than its detractors ? [0.0]
  This manuscript examines the systematic rejection Wikipedia in academic settings, not to argue for its legitimacy as a source, but to demonstrate that its reliability is often underestimated traditional academic sources enjoy disproportionate credibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:16:24Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Geopolitical biases in LLMs: what are the "good" and the "bad" countries according to contemporary language models [52.00270888041742]
  We introduce a novel dataset with neutral event descriptions and contrasting viewpoints from different countries.<n>Our findings show significant geopolitical biases, with models favoring specific national narratives.<n>Simple debiasing prompts had a limited effect on reducing these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T10:45:17Z)
• Through the LLM Looking Glass: A Socratic Probing of Donkeys, Elephants, and Markets [42.55423041662188]
  The study aims to directly measure the models' biases rather than relying on external interpretations.<n>Our results reveal a consistent preference of Democratic over Republican positions across all models.<n>In economic topics, biases vary among Western LLMs, while those developed in China lean more strongly toward socialism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T19:40:40Z)
• Seeing Like an AI: How LLMs Apply (and Misapply) Wikipedia Neutrality Norms [11.01040577011255]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on broad corpora and then used in communities with specialized norms. We evaluate their capacity to detect and correct biased Wikipedia edits according to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T23:05:58Z)
• Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is Said [46.1845409187583]
  We propose to measure political bias in LLMs by analyzing both the content and style of their generated content regarding political issues. Our proposed measure looks at different political issues such as reproductive rights and climate change, at both the content (the substance of the generation) and the style (the lexical polarity) of such bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T18:22:48Z)
• Kuaipedia: a Large-scale Multi-modal Short-video Encyclopedia [59.47639408597319]
  Kuaipedia is a large-scale multi-modal encyclopedia consisting of items, aspects, and short videos lined to them. It was extracted from billions of videos of Kuaishou, a well-known short-video platform in China.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T12:54:30Z)
• Improving Wikipedia Verifiability with AI [116.69749668874493]
  We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims. Our first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims. Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-08T15:23:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.