[drysart]

There's a significant difference between a site being useless because it just doesn't have the breadth yet to cover the topic you're looking for (as in early Wikipedia); versus a site being useless by not actually having facts about the topic you're looking for, yet spouting out authoritative-looking nonsense anyway.

[jameslk]

> versus a site being useless by not actually having facts about the topic you're looking for, yet spouting out authoritative-looking nonsense anyway.

You just described Wikipedia early on before it had much content, rules around weasel words, original research, etc

[LexiMax]

Wikipedia early on wasn't competing against Wikipedia, it was competing against hardcover encyclopedias. There was clear value-add from being able to draw from a wider range of human expertise and update on a quicker cadence.

In a world where Wikipedia already exists, there's no similar value-add to Grokipedia. Not only is it useless today, there is nothing about the fundamental design of the site that would lead me to believe that it has any path to being more authoritative or accurate than Wikipedia in the future - ever.