Idk man, who is really the target audience for this? I agree that wikipedia skews left a bit (they say the truth has a leftward bend, afterall). But wikipedia is authoritative because of the quality of the citations. There is an honest search for the truth on Wikipedia, no matter how imperfect it may be. There is homework which is done for each article. Grokopedia, from what I can see so far, mostly cites conservative mommy blogs and "news sites" like NYPost.

The point of wikipedia, still today, even with LLMs, is to find the truth as has been hand selected and vetted by other people. Grokopedia is instead, well, essentially what you'd get with Grok—an incredibly disingenuous twist on reality backed up by sources that have no journalistic integrity or journals with nil impact score. So why would any conservative use this rather than just using Grok—you're gonna get the same thing on either end: bull shit.