All encyclopedias have their biases but Wikipedia, consulted by many millions who deserve better — some of whom should know better — is surely legendary.
Here’s a traditional Wikipedia entry on the intelligent design controversy, first paragraph:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”.[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
Wow, Lots of Name-Calling
But little engagement with evidence. Design of the universe can’t be the only topic on which Wikipedia has proudly paraded such bias. Yet the free online encyclopedia remains a key source for shaping public opinion in the way the largely unknown editors wish. For more on that topic see Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger’s Nine Theses.
But just when you think some things will never change, when I checked this morning, there is now a note of caution heading up that entry:
This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from “intelligent design”, see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).
Of course “generic arguments from ‘intelligent design’” are an argument for teleology (purpose in the universe) based on the universe’s design — its fine-tuning for life in particular. But that is hardly news. Some sort of pressure (or — possibly? — even embarrassment at their own gross mendacity) may have forced Wikipedia’s anonycrats to try honest reporting on that page, however slowly or grudgingly.
Elsewhere at the site, ID is still referred to as “the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design.” It’s conveniently unclear whether the editors think that all teleology is “pseudoscience,” despite its prominence in the philosophy of science.
But the big problem isn’t what they think; it’s the fact that far too many people rely on them for information — which may often just be propaganda with plenty of citations.
Fast Forward — Wikipedia May Have Competition
It had to happen eventually. Elon Musk has now launched Grokipedia, a Wikipedia competitor, following in the footsteps of AI assistant Grok:
Grok is an AI developed by xAI, designed to answer questions with maximum truth-seeking, minimal fluff, and a touch of outside perspective on humanity. Inspired by the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and Jarvis from Iron Man, Grok aims to be helpful, honest, and slightly irreverent.
It’s too soon to tell how that’ll go. But, as with all things Musk, there is no shortage of detractors:
When we finally got access to it, WIRED found that the online encyclopedia contained lengthy entries generated by AI. While many of the pages WIRED saw on launch day appeared fairly similar to Wikipedia in terms of tone and content, a number of notable Grokipedia entries denounced the mainstream media, highlighted conservative viewpoints, and sometimes perpetuated historical inaccuracies.
Reece Rogers,“Elon Musk’s Grokipedia Pushes Far-Right Talking Points,” October 27, 2025
Cry us a river. But on the very first topic that Wired cites in evidence, Grok sounds a lot more like average members of the public than legacy media sources do:
The Grokipedia entry for “transgender” includes two mentions of “transgenderism,” a term commonly used to denigrate trans people. The entry also refers to trans women as “biological males” who have “generated significant conflicts, primarily centered on risks to women’s safety, privacy, and sex-based protections established to mitigate male-perpetrated violence.”
“Far-Right Talking Points,”
Some writers at Wired may be surprised but most people don’t think that taking the safety of girls and women seriously is a far-right thing.
And Sure Enough …
When we looked into what Grokipedia was saying about ID, well, it sounds like the AI — or whoever is managing it — follows the time-honored rule of letting people explain themselves and saving the commentary for later, presented as opinion, not fact:
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that holds certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected processes like natural selection.[1] Proponents argue that empirical observations of complex specified information and fine-tuning in physical constants point to purposeful agency, drawing analogies to human artifacts where design is inferred from function and arrangement.[2]
Central to ID are concepts like irreducible complexity, introduced by biochemist Michael Behe, which describes systems such as the bacterial flagellum where all parts must be present simultaneously for function, challenging gradual evolutionary assembly without foresight.[3] Similarly, mathematician William Dembski formalized specified complexity as a detectable signature of design, quantifiable in biological structures like DNA, where improbable patterns match independent specifications.[4] …
Intelligent Design
Much more at the link. But overall, the entry seems to be written to inform the reader rather than to enlist the reader against the topic.
It’s Early Days Yet…
There is still plenty of time for Grok to be infiltrated by all kinds of bias and it would certainly be wise to keep checking back. That said, times are surely changing when facts are publicly stated rather than publicly shouted down.
Cross-posted at Mind Matters News.