My Middle School Debate Team vs. Elon Musk

In 1972, I was a member of the Bay Trail Middle School Debate Team. We learned rules and techniques by debating one another in after-school club meetings, then we traveled to other schools to compete in regional tournaments.

I was assigned to argue in favor of the death penalty—even though as a personal matter, I was opposed. I did a lot of research at the library about capital punishment, pro and con. My task was to make “pro” arguments convincingly, and challenge “con” arguments effectively. It was fun constructing arguments that opposed my personal beliefs. (The process strengthened my private opinion.)

The thing about being a debater is, you’re not trying to get your opponents to change their minds. You’re just trying to score points with the judges. There are rules; you know how to get points. You win or lose based on the judges’ point-count.

As an adult, I’ve learned the world is composed mostly of people whose minds cannot be changed. Nobody can be convinced of anything. But still, there’s a lot of yelling. Why does the world seem to be filled with debate teams endlessly restating their arguments? Because—gosh—actually, there really are some people whose minds can be changed.

Young people…discontented people…people seeking something they don’t have.

People “doing their own research” to find a way forward with their lives, when the world seems so crazy.

When I was in debate club, and I needed to learn what the Pro-Death-Penalty people believed, I went to the library to read magazines and books. Today, most people type a question into a search engine. They receive an Artificial Intelligence response, itemizing arguments Pro and Con. Then, researchers can proceed with their further inquiries online, as well.

So: twenty-five years ago—in 2001—a research tool emerged on the Internet, called Wikipedia. This was a collectively-written website that proposed to complement (or replace) existing reference publications like Encyclopedia Britannica.

There was resistance in schools and colleges to students citing Wikipedia articles in their papers. But over the years, Wikipedia emerged as a useful tool. The main rule with utilizing Wikipedia when doing research was that you should follow the outward reference links that Wikipedia articles cited, and, you yourself should cite those original sources, in your writing.

Because Wikipedia was collectively written, and because many topics were the subject of controversy, the creation of lots of the articles was a constant ongoing battle. Advocates for the various standpoints were managed by third-party arbiters and editors. Wikipedia was—and is—a dynamic online environment, with thousands and thousands of contributors worldwide.

Well, last fall, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, decided he didn’t like Wikipedia because it isn’t sufficiently Right-Wing. Musk announced he would launch a competing online encyclopedia that relied on his AI large language model, called xAI or Grok. Musk’s new encyclopedia launched in October 2025 and already has six million articles. It’s called Grokipedia.

How did Grokipedia create six million articles so quickly? It copied the topics and subjects from Wikipedia, which has about seven million articles.

Grokipedia’s AI re-wrote the original Wikipedia articles to insert Right-Wing talking points. And, it replaced lots of the original Wikipedia content, drawing on and citing different sources, including unreliable kinds of sources which Wikipedia’s editorial rules don’t permit. (Old Facebook posts, old Twitter threads….)

That is, Grokipedia is openly biased, reflecting Elon Musk’s personal opinions. In addition, unlike Wikipedia, the public cannot participate in editing or correcting Grokipedia (you can send them an email, but they’ll likely ignore you).

Why do I care?

I have been profiled in Wikipedia, and therefore I have an article profiling me in Grokipedia.

My Grokipedia article contains errors and lies and—most importantly—a big section rebutting “my” ideas and opinions.

Wow, Elon Musk does not agree with me!

I don’t know if anyone will read my Grokipedia entry, or be so gullible as to take the “facts” therein at face value. People have an awful lot of nonsense to sift through on the internet, and my Grokipedia entry is the least of it.

But I hope the youth of today get a chance to join a good Debate Club in school and learn how to argue Pro and Con on any subject, regardless of personal opinion. For them, Grokipedia’s absurdly blatant bias will surely provide a fine training ground to exercise their Critical Thinking muscles.

All right, what am I talking about specifically? For instance:

“Critics of positions like those advanced by Laties in his advocacy against book challenges argue that the term ‘bans’ mischaracterizes efforts to remove specific titles from public school libraries and curricula, framing them instead as legitimate curation to ensure content aligns with age-appropriateness standards funded by taxpayers.[33] These efforts, proponents of parental rights contend, do not prohibit private purchase or access elsewhere.”--https://grokipedia.com/page/andrew_laties#criticisms-and-debates

Hey, anyone who’s read the first two pages of my You’re Telling My Kids They Can’t Read This Book? knows I tell the story of a bookstore that closed down entirely because guys who didn’t like the store’s books were bringing AR-15 rifles to that bookstore.

Families can’t make a “private purchase” elsewhere if their local bookstore was closed down by vigilantes.

Grokipedia didn’t read my book. Grokipedia trots out irrelevant statements and talking points, and it doesn’t know that I successfully debunked those arguments, in my book.

But maybe some people will learn about my book, through Grokipedia! I hope those people choose to go to the source. I’ve posted my entire book online, for free.

Unlike Elon Musk’s relationship to Grokipedia, You’re Telling My Kids They Can’t Read This Book? was truly written by me.

A human being with Natural Intelligence!