Elon Musk’s Grokipedia cites Stormfront — a neo-Nazi forum — dozens of times, study finds

13 comments

1. >also cites the conspiracy theory website Infowars as a source 34 times and the white nationalist website VDare 107 times

   >the researchers found that Grokipedia includes 12,522 citations to online sources that previous academic research has deemed as having very low credibility. And they found that Grokipedia cites those domains three times as often as Wikipedia.has deemed as having very low credibility.

   What else do expect from a nazi billionaire?

2. Well yeah, X is Stormfront 2.0, and Musk is a flabbier, whinier, and less intelligent Julius Striecher. If a full on nazi salute at the presidential inauguration doesn’t say anything, I don’t think his Robot Fourth Reich should surprise anyone at this stage.

3. [deleted]

4. [Storm front](https://stormchasers.milbstore.com/) is also the name of the store at my local never ever get a chance to play in MLB (thanks monopoly) baseball team. I told them about it a few years ago. But I guess it’s not a big deal to share that name.

5. Bad information is still information, even if you disagree with it

   Read: I think it’s still “fair” to aggregate, despite its potentially offensive nature.

6. It has to do with SEO and how algorithms prioritize data sources, by presumably finding the most authoritative by whatever metric available. Storm Front has been on the internet since 1995, and being a first mover is considered a source of SEO authority due to domain age. Once upon a time if you searched for how DSMO can benefit tendon recovery, a Storm Front thread regarding it (yes they have off topic threads like any forum, and being decades old means they have lots of them, which are possibly first movers for the subject) was once the top search. This does not mean an A.I. scraper is linking to it due to ideology.

7. I was really against this as a Polish person, but then it said that they cite infowars (which is totally banned on wiki) so im kinda interested now. Just sayin.

   E* Btw. Stormfront is often cited because the page was developed in 1995.

   You guys realise that I don’t support this right?
   Im just interested in why this happened.

8. Groks quality and response has gone down the past month. It was doing basic math wrong then going into a tail spin and lying about why it couldn’t do basic math. It was pretty usefully before that but now I can’t trust anything it shows and that’s a waste of my time.

9. Grok just today literally said that Elon Musk is better at sports than motherfucking LeBron James, is fitter than Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg became jacked as fuck lately while Musk is still a flabby fuck) and to top it off when you ask Grok who the most important person in the World is.. I probably do not need to tell you the answer it gives.

   It is absolutely incredible how insecure the richest guy in the world is

10. This is not news. At least not for me. He can afford and is comfortable doing s_g h**l during a presidential inauguration.
    It is no surprise he sources and cites info from a neo-n_z_ forum

11. How is it cited? “Stormfront recorded that may 12th 1875 was a sunny day” inane things? Stats that they themselves source elsewhere for their propaganda?

12. That’s a weak article. I want to know what the citations are and whether they are valid in context.

    >In an article about a Virginia-based white nationalist publication, Grokipedia cites and links to Stormfront seven times, with the links appearing at the bottom of the article under “references.” A Wikipedia article [with the same title](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vanguard_(United_States)) cites mainstream sources, such as Newsweek magazine. The Grokipedia version also uses euphemisms such as “advancement of peoples of European descent” in place of labels such as “white nationalist” preferred by Wikipedia editors, and the Grokipedia version is about 15 times longer than the Wikipedia article.

    >The Grokipedia article for the 1998 film “American History X” cites and links to Stormfront [six times](https://github.com/htried/wiki-grok-comparison/blob/main/results/overall/cite_sublist/fringe_citations.csv), summarizing how people on Stormfront’s discussion forum view the film. The Wikipedia entry for the film does not cite Stormfront, instead relying on movie websites and news publications. (In the film, Edward Norton plays an American neo-Nazi, a role that earned him an Academy Award nomination.)

    Rebranding white nationalist is problematic, but I don’t I don’t see stormfront citations in these contexts necessarily as inappropriate. I mean if you write an article about Hitler or Nazis, Mein Kampf is a legitimate primary source citation. (Though I recognize wikipedia prefers secondary sources, so you might not get such citations)

13. This feels a bit overblown. Stuff like:

    “The Grokipedia article for the 1998 film “American History X” cites and links to Stormfront six times, summarizing how people on Stormfront’s discussion forum view the film. The Wikipedia entry for the film does not cite Stormfront, instead relying on movie websites and news publications. (In the film, Edward Norton plays an American neo-Nazi, a role that earned him an Academy Award nomination.)”

    Seems pretty reasonable and arguably something that should be in an article about that movie. It is certainly a topic of some interest with regard to that film specifically.

Comments are closed.