In late October,<\/span> Elon Musk released a Wikipedia alternative, with pages written by his AI chatbot Grok. Unlike its nearly quarter-century-old namesake, Musk said Grokipedia would strip out the \u201cwoke\u201d from Wikipedia, which he <\/a>previously described<\/a> as an \u201cextension of legacy media propaganda.\u201d But while Musk\u2019s Grokipedia, in his eyes, is propaganda-free, it seems to have a proclivity toward right-wing hagiography.<\/p>\n Take Grokipedia\u2019s entry on Adolf Hitler<\/a>. Until earlier this month, the entry read, \u201cAdolf Hitler was the Austrian-born F\u00fchrer of Germany from 1933 to 1945.\u201d That phrase has been edited to \u201cAdolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and dictator,\u201d but Grok still refers to Hitler by his honorific one clause later, writing that Hitler served as \u201cF\u00fchrer und Reichskanzler from August 1934 until his suicide in 1945.\u201d NBC News also pointed out<\/a> that the page on Hitler goes on for some 13,000 words before the first mention of the Holocaust.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t the first time Grok has praised Hitler. Earlier this year, X users posted screenshots<\/a> of the AI chatbot saying the Nazi leader could help combat \u201canti-white hate,\u201d echoing his maker\u2019s statements about debunked claims<\/a> of a \u201cwhite genocide\u201d in South Africa<\/a>. (When confronted<\/a> about his chatbot\u2019s \u201cMechaHitler<\/a>\u201d turn earlier this year, he said users \u201cmanipulated\u201d it into praising the Nazi leader).<\/p>\n Grokipedia isn\u2019t exactly Stormfront, the neo-Nazi site known for spewing outright bigotry or Holocaust denial, but it does cite the white supremacist blog at least 42 times, according to recently published data <\/a>by researcher Hal Triedman. Instead, the AI-generated Wikipedia alternative subtly advances far-right narratives by mimicking the authority of Wikipedia while reframing extremist positions, casting suspicion on democratic institutions, and elevating fringe or conspiratorial sources.<\/p>\n LK Seilling, an AI researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute, describes Grokipedia as \u201ccloaking misinformation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone knows Wikipedia. They\u2019re an epistemic authority, if you\u2019d want to call them that. [Musk] wants to attach himself to exactly that epistemic authority to substantiate his political agenda,\u201d they say.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n It\u2019s worth paying attention to how Grok frames a few key issues. <\/p>\n Take, for example, Grokipedia\u2019s post about the Alternative for Germany<\/a>, a far-right-wing party Elon Musk repeatedly praised in the lead-up to the German election earlier this year. Grok contains an entire section on \u201cMedia Portrayals and Alleged Bias,\u201d which serves to parrot AfD\u2019s long-held claims that the media is biased and undermining them. (The party <\/a>routinely pedals <\/a>anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric, and its leaders have previously urged the country to stop apologizing for its Nazi past. AfD has also peddled conspiracy theories like the \u201cGreat Replacement,\u201d a favorite of white nationalists<\/a>.)<\/p>\n \u201cMainstream German media outlets, including public broadcasters such as ARD and ZDF, have consistently portrayed the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a far-right or extremist party,\u201d Grok writes. \u201cThis framing often highlights AfD\u2019s scrutiny by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), which classified the party\u2019s youth wing as extremist in 2021 and the overall party under observation for right-wing extremism tendencies by 2025, while downplaying policy achievements like electoral gains in eastern states.\u201d<\/p>\n The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution was established after World War II to ensure that no German leader tries to overturn the country\u2019s constitution again. But Grokipedia subtly casts doubt on the institution\u2019s legitimacy arguing that it is \u201cdownplaying\u201d the AfD\u2019s achievements.<\/p>\n According to Seiling, who is German, Grokipedia is attempting to undermine the authority of German institutions created to prevent another Hitler. \u201cIt\u2019s moving within the narratives that these parties themselves are spreading,\u201d Seiling says. \u201cIf you look closely, their argument is also kind of shit. Just because [AfD is] polling at 15 percent doesn\u2019t mean they have merit. \u201d<\/p>\n Nowhere is this more clear than how Grokipedia deals<\/a> with the genocide in Gaza. <\/p>\n Much like the post on the AfD, the page has a long section dedicated to the \u201cbiases\u201d of the United Nations and NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which Grok accuses of emphasizing \u201cIsraeli actions while minimizing Hamas\u2019s violations.\u201d Notably, Grokipedia repeats unsubstantiated claims by Israel that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees was infiltrated by Hamas operatives, and the pages for the Israel\u2013Hamas conflict rely strongly on hyperlinks from pro-Israel advocacy groups like UN Watch and NGO Watch.<\/p>\n \u201cAn internal UN investigation confirmed that nine UNRWA employees \u2018may have been involved\u2019 in the Hamas-led assault, leading to their termination, while Israeli intelligence identified at least 12 UNRWA staff participating, including in hostage-taking and logistics,\u2019 Grok writes. While the United Nations did fire nine employees after Israel alleged they were involved in the October 7 attack, it also confirmed<\/a> that it was not able to \u201cindependently authenticate information used by Israel to support the allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s worth noting that Netanyahu and the IDF made a series of false claims<\/a> after the October 7th terror attack, including that Hamas beheaded 40 children<\/a> and that Hamas insurgents weaponized sexual violence<\/a> during the attacks.<\/p>\n As UNRWA itself has noted, the unsubstantiated claims made against its employees have put the lives of its staff at risk. According to the U.N.<\/a>, 1 in every 50 UNRWA staff members in Gaza has been killed during the conflict, the highest death toll of any conflict in U.N. history.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/hitler-grokipedia-page.png?fit=1718%2C584\")