Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, characterizes himself as a "pathological optimist," a trait that may surprise those familiar with the complex challenges surrounding his widely referenced online encyclopedia. Speaking with TIME magazine in October, Wales expressed some astonishment that Wikipedia has functioned as effectively as it has for over two decades. He described the platform’s open editing model—allowing anyone to revise any entry—as inherently "completely insane" considering the unpredictable nature of social media and online discourse.
Wales recently authored his first book, The Seven Rules of Trust, aiming to extract lessons from Wikipedia and a handful of other trust-based internet platforms like Airbnb, Uber, and eBay. His focus rests on the broader context of declining confidence in traditional institutions, including politicians and mainstream media, which he considers a factor in rising political polarization and social tension.
The 59-year-old Wales also reflected on his personal connection to political violence, recalling his friendship with the late British Labour MP Jo Cox, who was tragically killed in 2016. He sees the increase in ideologically motivated violence as symptomatic of a breakdown in societal norms and mutual trust, underscoring the importance of platforms that foster dialogue and compromise.
Remarkably, Wikipedia has transitioned from being perceived as a curiosity to one of the relatively few online sources that the public continues to rely on for accurate information. However, this mantle is increasingly challenged. Notable detractors such as Elon Musk, who previously supported Wikipedia, alongside public figures including David Sacks, Tucker Carlson, and Wikipedia’s own estranged co-founder Larry Sanger, have accused the encyclopedia of harboring ideological bias.
Shortly before the release of Wales’ book, Musk launched Grokipedia, a new encyclopedia powered by his AI chatbot Grok. Launched in October, Grokipedia hosts over 885,000 entries, many closely mirroring Wikipedia’s own content. Musk has publicly claimed that Grokipedia will surpass Wikipedia in scope, depth, and accuracy by significant margins. The comparison is stark given Wikipedia’s expansive English-language database of more than 7 million articles.
Musk has regularly criticized Wikipedia, derisively dubbing it "Wokipedia" and offering a $1 billion proposal to rename it "Dickipedia". Wales has countered such accusations, urging critics who perceive bias to actively participate in Wikipedia's editorial process rather than dismiss the platform as politically biased. He describes Wikipedia’s editorial community as striving for neutrality and fact-based transparency, emphasizing how source citations allow users to verify and engage critically with the information.
The reception to Grokipedia has reflected broader ideological divides. Admirers hail the AI-driven site for presumably eliminating human bias and errors, praising its detailed coverage on sensitive topics such as George Floyd’s death. Yet critics point to differences in presentation: Grokipedia leads its article on Floyd by highlighting his criminal history, relegating the fact of his death by a police officer to later sections. Moreover, articles relating to Musk and his affiliated ventures tend to be longer but omit troublesome details found in Wikipedia’s versions.
Unlike Wikipedia, Grokipedia does not allow direct user editing. Readers can review sources and submit correction suggestions, but these updates are processed algorithmically by Grok rather than debated through public discussion or reviewed by human moderators. The AI chatbot itself has stirred controversy, notably releasing antisemitic remarks following an update in July, prompting an apology from xAI and suspension of that update.
Regarding these developments, Wales does not predict a splintering of encyclopedic sources online. He remains confident that Wikipedia will maintain its commitment to quality and neutrality. Wales suggests that Grokipedia’s alignment with Musk’s perspective may attract some users but will remain distinct from Wikipedia’s broader reach and editorial methods.
Wales acknowledges Wikipedia’s imperfections, citing incidents where the platform has been manipulated by trolls and interest groups attempting to inject partisan viewpoints. Notably, an early defamation case falsely implicated journalist John Seigenthaler in a major historical event. Despite such challenges, Wikipedia’s sustained growth and popularity, surpassing newspapers in readership, testify to the resilience and dedication of its volunteer editors.
In recent activity, Wales himself engaged in contentious editorial debate over the Wikipedia article "Gaza genocide," expressing concerns that it failed to meet editorial standards by presenting claims that Israel is committing genocide as fact rather than as documented perspectives. His stance prompted resistance from other editors who questioned why impartial reports from official bodies like the United Nations should be equated with typically partisan commentators. Wales reasserted the encyclopedia’s commitment to neutrality, emphasizing that documentation—not advocacy—is Wikipedia’s purpose in such disputes.
The Wikimedia Foundation reaffirmed this collective editorial ethos, noting that Wales acts as one among many editors who uphold Wikipedia’s policies on presenting balanced information, especially on sensitive topics.
Beyond Grokipedia, Wikipedia faces additional AI-related challenges. Bots now generate roughly 65% of the nonprofit’s most demanding traffic, often scraping content to train AI chatbots. Increasingly, search users encounter AI-generated summaries that sometimes contain inaccuracies instead of direct Wikipedia links. Alternatively, users might bypass such sources altogether, turning straight to AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude for answers.
Wales warns that such dynamics elevate the importance of reliable, human-curated knowledge bases like Wikipedia. He stresses that trust principles apply equally to AI development, as frequent instances of AI hallucination—making up facts—can erode public confidence in these technologies and the information they produce.
Bridging theory and practice, Wales points to everyday scenarios where people routinely extend trust, such as sharing elevators or using rideshares, as examples of constructive social interactions. Initiatives like Braver Angels organize conversations between politically opposed groups, leading participants to greater understanding and openness to compromise. Wales advocates for designing institutions and digital spaces that cultivate similar trust-building interactions by combining slow, structured collaboration with transparency.
To navigate the disorienting online ecosystem, Wales offers pragmatic advice: focus time and attention on media that foster trust and critically evaluate social media consumption. He candidly recommends removing the social media platform X from personal devices to reduce exposure to distrust-generating content and misinformation.