It's very weird to assume good intentions or trustworthy info from Grokipedia but then hold up Wikipedia as "heavily poisoned". Your questions are based on a lot of assumptions that aren't widely shared.

It's democracy (as flawed as that can be) vs. one individual billionaire's personal AI.

>> "For many people it's obvious"

[who?][citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWho

Having standards for this stuff matters even if you don't always like the result.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...

>> "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."