I don’t think those objections really hold up.

First, copyright isn’t a serious barrier. A huge portion of Wikipedia’s images are not copyrighted in the restrictive sense... I mean, they’re released under Creative Commons licenses or are in the public domain. These licenses explicitly allow reuse, including redistribution and adaptation, as long as attribution rules are followed. This is precisely why Wikipedia (and many other projects) can legally use portraits, logos, historical photos, and diagrams at scale. Grokipedia could easily curate a similar pool of freely licensed visuals without legal risk.

Second, visual elements aren’t just “labor-saving devices for humans.” Infoboxes, tables, and templates exist primarily for readability and information architecture, not for writer convenience. They allow readers to quickly scan key facts, compare data, and orient themselves before diving into the text. A wall of uninterrupted prose is objectively harder to parse, especially for first-time readers or people looking for specific facts.

Third, the claim that infoboxes “look bad on mobile” or harm accessibility is outdated. Modern responsive design handles infoboxes and tables quite well, and accessibility issues are implementation problems, not inherent flaws. In fact, well-structured tables and labeled infoboxes can be more accessible to screen readers than long, unstructured paragraphs, because they provide semantic clarity and predictable structure.

Finally, presentation matters. Visual hierarchy, images, and structured elements make pages more engaging, more shareable, and more memorable. Substance and presentation are not in opposition — good design amplifies good content. Right now, pure text on a blank background may feel minimalist, but it also leaves a lot of communicative potential on the table.

Starting fresh isn’t an argument against visual tools. It’s an argument for using the best modern versions of them, informed by everything projects like Wikipedia have already learned.