A quarter century ago, Wikipedia's decentralized, crowdsourced, and consensus-driven model replaced the centralized, expert-driven, and authority-based standard for encyclopedic knowledge curation. The emergence of generative AI encyclopedias, such as Grokipedia, possibly presents another potential shift in epistemic evolution. This study investigates whether AI- and human-curated encyclopedias rely on the same foundations of authority. We conducted a multi-scale comparative analysis of the citation networks from 72 matched article pairs, which cite a total of almost 60,000 sources. Using an 8-category epistemic classification, we mapped the "epistemic profiles" of the articles on each platform. Our findings reveal several quantitative and qualitative differences in how knowledge is sourced and encyclopedia claims are epistemologically justified. Grokipedia replaces Wikipedia's heavy reliance on peer-reviewed "Academic & Scholarly" work with a notable increase in "User-generated" and "Civic organization" sources. Comparative network analyses further show that Grokipedia employs very different epistemological profiles when sourcing leisure topics (such as Sports and Entertainment) and more societal sensitive civic topics (such as Politics & Conflicts, Geographical Entities, and General Knowledge & Society). Finally, we find a "scaling-law for AI-generated knowledge sourcing" that shows a linear relationship between article length and citation density, which is distinct from collective human reference sourcing. We conclude that this first implementation of an LLM-based encyclopedia does not merely automate knowledge production but restructures it. Given the notable changes and the important role of encyclopedias, we suggest the continuation and deepening of algorithm audits, such as the one presented here, in order to understand the ongoing epistemological shifts.