I'll spell out the argument:

Wikipedia is fine for uncontroversial facts. The obscure ones can have individual mistakes but it's generally correct.

For controversial topics, it's an eternal battle between factions of "volunteers" trying to present their view of a conflict. The articles reflect which side has the best organized influencer operations. Factual truth may or may not shine through, but as a side effect, not a result of the governing process.

Grokipedia operates by Grok writing what it considers the true and interesting facts. That doesn't mean it's always right, but it's a model far less influenced by influencer operations.

I wildly disagree with the critique based on the wealth of the top executive. I care about the truth and quality of the articles.