MxM News

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence venture xAI launched “Grokipedia” on Monday — a new online encyclopedia built to challenge what he says is Wikipedia’s entrenched political bias. The site, powered by xAI’s technology and integrated with Grok, the same AI system behind Musk’s X platform, aims to provide a politically balanced alternative to the long-dominant Wikipedia, which critics have accused for years of leftist censorship and selective editing.

Grokipedia, now live in its beta “v0.1” stage, opens with roughly 885,000 entries — a fraction of Wikipedia’s seven million English-language pages but a notable start for a platform that launched just hours ago. Some users experienced temporary errors upon the rollout, but by Monday evening the site was running smoothly. Musk framed the project as part of his broader effort to restore transparency and ideological diversity to the digital space, echoing his moves to overhaul Twitter into X.

The billionaire’s feud with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has grown increasingly bitter in recent months. Musk has accused Wales of allowing Wikipedia to devolve into a propaganda outlet that protects liberal narratives while suppressing dissenting voices. “Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored,” Musk wrote in a January post on X. Wales, for his part, has dismissed Grokipedia as an unserious experiment, telling the Washington Post last week that AI-generated content is prone to “massive factual errors” and lacks editorial oversight.

Breitbart News has documented numerous examples of Wikipedia’s bias, from its editors smearing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination to attempts to delete articles about his widow Erika Kirk and Ukrainian activist Iryna Zarutska. One editor even proposed deleting Bible verses, while another added Nazi references to politically conservative entries. The site’s governing “neutrality working group,” announced amid backlash, has ignored allegations of left-wing bias and instead congratulated itself on maintaining “neutrality on contentious subjects.”

Grokipedia vs. Wikipedia on Charlie Kirk.

We all knew Wikipedia sucked, but this hit a nerve.

Grokipedia is the obvious choice. pic.twitter.com/BEWLCNPtp7

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) October 28, 2025

For Musk, Grokipedia represents more than a product launch — it’s another front in his campaign to dismantle what he sees as the internet’s entrenched progressive gatekeepers. While Wikipedia’s defenders dismiss his challenge as quixotic, the early traffic surge to Grokipedia suggests that many users are ready to see if Musk’s alternative can deliver what the old encyclopedia no longer does: balance, transparency, and a willingness to question the narrative.

(Photo/Alex Brandon)

From the Fraser Institute

By Bruce Pardy

Recently, millions participated in “No Kings” protests across the United States and elsewhere, including the Vancouver Art Gallery where people gathered to resist authoritarianism and protect democracy. But inexplicably, they were there to protest Donald Trump. The politician dismantling their rights is British Columbia Premier David Eby.

It’s quintessentially Canadian. Vancouver’s best are outraged about the state of democracy in America, but oblivious to the autocracy of their own governments.

Quietly, Eby is transforming B.C. In early 2024, his government proposed to amend the province’s Land Act, which governs the use of Crown land in the province. It planned to give B.C.’s hundreds of First Nations a veto over mining, hydro projects, farming, forestry, docks and communication towers. The government tried to consult quietly, but the backlash was immediate and vociferous. It withdrew the proposals, promising to be more transparent. But it did not shelve its objectives or plans. And did not deliver on its promise. Instead, it sought to make agreements over specific territories with specific Aboriginal groups, often negotiated covertly and announced after the fact.

In April 2024, the Eby government recognized Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii, the archipelago on Canada’s west coast. Around 5,000 people live on Haida Gwaii, about half Haida, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of the deal. But non-Haida residents had no say. Two classes of citizens now live on Haida Gwaii; one with political status and the other without. The Haida agreement says private property will be honoured, but private property is incompatible with Aboriginal title, which is communal. If Haida Gwaii really is subject to Aboriginal title, then no one can own parts of it privately.

Eby has said that the Haida agreement is to serve as a “template.” In January 2025, his government revealed that it had made an agreement for Indigenous management of land and resources with the shíshálh (Sechelt) Nation on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast. Aboriginal title is in the works. The agreement was made in August 2024 on the eve of the provincial election but kept hidden for five months. Residents were in the dark until the government revealed the finished deal.

Even before that agreement was negotiated, shíshálh Nation and the government had developed a “Dock Management Plan” to impose various new and onerous rules on private property owners in Pender Harbour, including red “no go” zones and rules that made many existing docks and boat houses non-compliant. Residents with long-standing docks in full legal compliance had no right to negotiate, to be consulted or to be grandfathered.

In June 2025, the government gave the Tŝilhqot’in Nation a veto over mining projects in the Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) area. In an agreement with the Squamish Nation, it established 33 cultural sites off limits to development. The government has also allowed First Nations to close provincial parks to the non-Aboriginal public.

Much of this can be traced to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and to the B.C. statute that incorporates UNDRIP into B.C. law. That statute, known as DRIPA, was passed unanimously by the B.C. legislature in 2019. It calls upon the B.C. government to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” UNDRIP says, literally, that the land belongs to Indigenous peoples. To be charitable, not all members of the legislature may have understood what they were doing. Next up for DRIPA transformation appears to be the B.C. Heritage Conservation Act.

Courts have been doing their part. Recently, the City of Richmond sent out a letter to property owners. “For those whose property is in the area outlined in black,” the letter reads, “the Court has declared aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership… The entire area outlined in green has been claimed on appeal by the Cowichan First Nations.”

The Richmond letter is a consequence of a recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, which awarded the Cowichan First Nation Aboriginal title over 800 acres of land in Richmond. Wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist, said the court, it is a “prior and senior right” to other property interests, whether the land is public or private.

Governments and the courts work together on this project, too. In September, the Eby government, along with the federal government and the Haida Council, applied for a consent order declaring Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii. The B.C. Supreme Court obliged. The effect of that declaration is to incorporate the Haida agreement’s recognition of Aboriginal title into a constitutional right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. No future government can reverse it.

B.C. is home to the most famous ostrich farm in the world, but it’s the people who have their heads in the sand. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” said abolitionist Wendell Phillips in 1852, “power is ever stealing from the many to the few.” Assume good faith on the part of governments at your peril. Especially in British Columbia, where the premier is mounting an existential threat to the future of his own province.

Bruce Pardy

Professor of Law, Queen’s University