I guess I’ll begin by looking at the article on the one subject about which I am the world’s greatest and most authoritative expert: https://grokipedia.com/page/La...

I can correct some errors out right out the gate. I'll start there: "He resigned in 2002, citing unsustainable funding, dilution of editorial standards, and failure to maintain neutrality as anonymous editing allowed ideological influences to undermine the project's original

"This nominally religious environment fostered initial faith..." My family was not just *nominally* religious in my first twelve years of life; we were not religious in name only, which is what this word means. We were, in fact, devout and regular churchgoers and not merely

"His father's scientific profession likely contributed to this shift toward scientific rationalism and skepticism." Fascinating. I don't think this is the case. But more interesting is that (a) I don't recall ever saying, or thinking, this before; (b) though Grokipedia cites

I do have to say that, so far, the article has details found in publicly-available materials about me that are not in the Wikipedia article about me, which are correct, relevant, and interesting.

OK. This gets into details that, again, appear to be plausible guesswork on Grokipedia's part, and which are misfires if not 100% wrong: "His research centered on epistemology, examining foundational questions about the justification of knowledge and responses to skepticism." I

It writes about my dissertation: "Portions of this research appeared in online essays, reflecting his early efforts to disseminate rigorous epistemological analysis beyond academia." This is true, but it's kind of weird to cite the fact that somebody posted my dissertation

"Nupedia was launched on March 9, 2000, as a free online encyclopedia project initiated by Jimmy Wales and funded through his company Bomis, with Larry Sanger hired as editor-in-chief to oversee its development." This is a good example of a thing an LLM might say, which a human

"Despite these safeguards, Nupedia encountered early hurdles in scalability, completing only around 21 approved articles by the end of its first year in March 2001 and fewer than two dozen by January of that year." In scalability? That's kind of strange to say. When a process

"...serving as its [Wikipedia's] full-time editor." Well...not really. That was not the title I claimed for myself, nobody at the time attributed that title to me, and "editor" as a description of what I was engaged in was just wrong (as I often said at the time). I called

"This expansion attracted diverse contributors but also introduced challenges, including vandalism and contributions from individuals lacking subject expertise, prompting Sanger to monitor and address these issues to maintain content quality." This is the sort of thing bad

"...and advocated for enhanced roles for credentialed experts to oversee contentious topics, countering the risks of unrestricted open editing by non-specialists." Well, that's true, but the article makes it sound as if I pushed that a lot while I was still chief organizer of

Oy, this is bad... "...Sanger elaborated on deeper concerns, including a perceived loss of editorial control, escalating vandalism by non-experts, and a drift from the original expert-vetted model toward unrestricted open editing, which he viewed as undermining quality." "Loss

Now here's a quirk that I think counts as an error, albeit of an interesting sort. In the following, after first vaguely describing the "co-founder dispute," the article simply dives in, without preamble, *retelling* the origin story it had told several paragraphs back, not

Fascinatingly (to me), Grokipedia vindicates my position in the "co-founder controversy," telling the story of what happened fairly: "Jimmy Wales has consistently downplayed Sanger's contributions, maintaining that he alone founded Wikipedia while Sanger served primarily as an

This is badly wrong, and totally misrepresents my thinking: "Sanger resigned as editor-in-chief of Wikipedia on March 1, 2002, expressing concerns that the project's open-editing model had diverged from Nupedia's expert-reviewed approach, fostering an environment where factual

"Nupedia required articles to undergo multi-stage peer review by PhD-holding specialists before publication..." Er, a Ph.D. was not required.

Ugh. Folks, is it getting worse? Well, Grokipedia is pushing a narrative here that is just wrong. "This shift prioritized content volume over depth, as the absence of formal expertise barriers incentivized prolific but non-specialist contributions, often overriding more informed

"Sanger maintains that these practices reflect not isolated errors but systemic governance failures, where reliable source policies entrench bias by deeming non-mainstream outlets inherently unreliable." The word "mainstream" is subtly wrong. Fox News and the New York Post are

This is sloppy, free-floating association, attributing to me ideas advocated by others. While I have spoken very broadly and vaguely (on purpose) of an anti-Hindu bias, I have not given any details, ever. The last sentence below is just bullshittery that I do not recognize as

This is well expressed, for the most part. Reading it, I shake my head that these things were never properly addressed; Wikipedia *still* has no child filter. So your kid can go there and still learn about sexual penetrative use of cucumbers and scrotum inflation, as well as

Good job here: https://x.com/lsanger/status/1...

This is a great summary, seriously! The theses advocate ending reliance on informal "consensus" for editorial decisions, which Sanger contends enables groupthink and suppresses dissent, in favor of formalized processes that uphold free speech and expert input.[24] Key proposals

This is badly wrong. Citizendium had over 15,000 articles (by the Wikipedia definition), not 3,200. "By late 2007, Citizendium had grown to over 3,200 articles and nearly 5 million words, with daily creation rates reaching 14 to 20 articles, tripling output since the pilot

"In 2007, Sanger contributed to the launch of the Encyclopedia of Earth, an online resource developed by the Digital Universe Foundation focusing on earth and environmental sciences..." The planning was in 2005 and it was already publicly available in 2006. If there was a launch

Interestingly, a lot of these mistakes (not the ones rooted in bad journalism, though) are ones that humans would not make. Here is a good example. Yes, Ballotpedia launched in 2007. But I had nothing to do with the launch of Ballotpedia (although Leslie Graves told me she took

This is interesting. In the section about the Knowledge Standards Foundation (which it is logical for Grokipedia to include in an article about me), there is the following sentence about the Nine Theses. The thing is, there were three paragraphs about the Nine Theses earlier in

Sure enough—in later sections, the article repeats stuff about my dissertation and other topics. So this seems to be a problem.

The "Rational Approaches to Truth and Knowledge" (#rational-approaches-to-truth-and-knowledge) class="text-blue-500 hover:underline" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://grokipedia.com/page/La... is, interestingly, what Wikipedians would call "original research." It features a number of claims that I would not make, mixed in with others that I would. It combines general claims about Nupedia policy

wut? The article gives a solid B effort in its summing-up of my conversion to Christianity, but concludes with this very puzzling sentence: "This shift underscored his prioritization of verifiable data—such as prophetic specificity and design inferences—against cultural