Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: An LLM-Based Audit of Political Neutrality along Ideologies
Computation and LanguageComputers and Society
Summary
The authors compared two online encyclopedias, Grokipedia (written by an AI called Grok) and Wikipedia, to see which is more politically neutral when describing government members. They used four different AI judges to rate nearly 1,400 article pairs on bias. The study found that Grokipedia was seen as less neutral and tended to favor right-wing economic views while being critical of socially liberal politicians. Wikipedia, on the other hand, was viewed as more favorable toward socially liberal figures. This shows that AI-written content doesn't automatically mean unbiased information.
Authors
Filippos Vlahos, Guillaume Bied, Tijl De Bie
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.