> To some extent that was Stack Overflow

Yup, that was always very much the plan, from the earliest days. Shame it soured a bit, but since the content is all freely reusable, maybe something can be built atop the ashes?

▲

__patchbit__ 4 days ago | parent [-]

There is https://grokipedia.com which encourages you to suggest an article and you may submit improvements to an existing article.

▲

lobsterthief 4 days ago | parent [-]

This is _not_ at all the same thing. Grok just ripped off Wikipedia as its base and then applied a biased spin to it. Check out the entry on Grok owner Elon Musk; it praises his accomplishments and completely omits or downplays most of his better-known controversies.

▲

latexr 4 days ago | parent [-]

And everything is “fact checked” by the Grok LLM. Which… Yeah…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies

	▲	__patchbit__ 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Grok information source is more reliable than Wikipedia. Objectively and incrementally improving. The leadership behind Grok is human rated safe rocket science quality. Whereas Wikipedia is a fugly dumpsterdive.