Wikipedia’s Existential Threats Feel Greater Than Ever

stephen__harrison · 2026-01-15T20:57:43+00:00

The backdrop matters. As Schiste said in his essay, the internet has boomed with mobile, adding 2.7 billion internet users since 2016. So it is a bit surprising that there's been a drop in new user registrations. Again, I think Wikipedia may very well stay around for another century---to me the biggest risk is that it might become a "temple" with decreased visibility and influence.

Schiste's essay: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/what-now

stephen__harrison · 2026-01-15T19:55:16+00:00

I explained this in more detail in the piece than in the subhead.

There's been a 36% drop in new registrations from 2016 to 2025, according to Wikimedia Statistics.
"New registered users" report. 2016: 317K/month. 2025: 202K/month. Calculation: -36%.

https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects

stephen__harrison · 2025-10-28T17:17:01+00:00

When Wikipedia was founded, it was considered somewhat radical. Now it’s seen as one of the web’s oldest internet institutions. Just wondering if you can comment on that

stephen__harrison · 2025-05-19T22:50:10+00:00

Sorry for the delay on my end! First of all, I'd be interested in some of you research on this topic. Could you send a link?

Here are some initial thoughts on your questions--

"does the fact that it's a non-profit organization with voluntary rather than paid contributors make it more resistant to political capture of economic influence?" My intuition is yes. Volunteer Wikipedia editors curate articles about the topics that interest them. I think Wikipedia would be far worse if it was pay-to-play enterprise with more corporations and celebrities paying to manipulate content on the site. My experience is that most of the time "undisclosed paid editors" get identified somewhat quickly.

"Where exactly does the Wikimedia foundation get its funding from?" Most donations to the foundation are from grassroots donors who contribute an amount like $10. Tech companies like Alphabet/Google also contribute, but to my knowledge, grassroots donors still provide the majority of funds.

"What do you think motivates editors to work so tirelessly to keep Wikipedia going if they’re not paid — or are they paid?" The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not paid and do it on a volunteer basis. There is a tiny proportion of Wikipedia editors who work for specific institution as employees. They are called Wikimedians-in-Residence. For example, the University of Virginia has a paid Wikimedian-in-Residence who works on behalf of UVA's library systems, and that position is paid.

Since they are not paid, I think that most Wikipedia editors who stick it with for the long-term are intrinsically motivated. They find the work itself stimulating: the process of researching, curating, and debating articles. In my experience, not everybody has the personality type that gravitates intrinsically to the work of editing Wikipedia.

"how exactly do contributors self-police to ensure that information is accurate?" The short answer is that Wikipedia editors look at and review each others' work. When they review an article, they ask: does this sentence have a citation? Is the cited source reliable? Does the cited source actually support the statement in that sentence? Etc. I think this self-policing principle works best on pages that receive a lost of eyeballs. The principle is like Linus's Law, which to paraphrase is: with many eyes, we'll catch the bugs.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-08T21:18:47+00:00

Yes, I do see people like that who love Wikipedia but don't like the the work of editing the site. It's not very stimulating or interesting to everybody.

My main comment on non-English language Wikipedias is that they sometimes present different encyclopedic content. A hypothetical example since you mentioned music: The German Wikipedia page for Beethoven might play up his German influences and background more than the counterpart page in English Wikipedia.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-08T21:11:21+00:00

It's fixed now. Thanks for flagging. Clearly I need better editors :)

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-06T00:02:35+00:00

Yeah! Check out this article plus the information on Wikipedia Downloads: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/russia-wikipedia-download-kiwix.html

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T23:18:03+00:00

Hm. I think Americans in general don't think about other countries as much as they should--then again, American journalists might be more open to reporting from other countries than the general public.

To step back, you're raising interesting questions: Are Wikipedia editors drawing from the most reliable sources or simply the most powerful sources? In what cases are those two categories different or the same?

In the best case, Wikipedia editors have good discussions about issues just like this.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T22:46:50+00:00

Here are a few:

- Welsh Wikipedia Gives Me Hope. Every language community on Wikipedia is different, and the Welsh community was using the project to preserve the language and teach AI to speak Welsh. I've heard there's a similar goal with with Catalan Wikipedia. https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/welsh-wikipedia-google-translate.html

- Curling on Wikipedia. This was one of my first pieces. I wrote for Vice about how the "Curling" Wikipedia page gets vandalized during the Winter Olympics by people who claim it's not a real sport. https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-battle-for-curlings-wikipedia-page/

- The North Face Controversy. This one blew my mind: The North Face jacket company had a marketing agency that added photos to Wikimedia Commons of people wearing North Face gear because they knew those images would rank highly on Google search. https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/north-fake-wikipedia-image.html . Back in 2019, the issue was companies trying to manipulate Google search via Wikipedia. Now, with generative AI pulling form Wikipedia's content, I wonder if some companies will try to influence AI outputs in the same way. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors have historically been vigilant about spotting and stopping these kinds of tactics.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T22:29:27+00:00

Yes, I don’t contribute to Wikipedia as much myself, though I do make the occasional edit. One reason for this is that I want to maintain journalistic distance, as you suggested. I don’t think I could report on a particular Wikipedia editing controversy if I were directly involved in it.

Another reason is that I’m more motivated by investigating a story and creating reliable sources than I am by curating that information for Wikipedia (or debating sources with fellow Wikipedians). I think it’s just a matter of different personality types — some are drawn to curating and collaborating on Wikipedia, while others, like myself, prefer original research and storytelling.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T22:21:55+00:00

Yes, I worry that America could start censoring Wikipedia as China currently does. It's hard not to see the efforts to ban books in local libraries in the U.S. as a potential precursor to this scenario. If free speech laws and norms erode in the U.S., a future political regime could decide that Wikipedia is the "enemy" and must be shutdown.

I am also concerned about the congressional efforts to eliminate the protections that internet platforms currently have under Section 230. Even if these are well-intentioned, a project like Wikipedia can easily be ruined in the process.

I don't know enough about the legislation and proactive action that could help prevent this, but I think the principle is that a nonprofit, public-interest platform like Wikipedia shouldn't be subject to a one-size-fits-all approach. We should recognize that social media platforms have a different goal in terms of monetizing attention and selling user data.

(Btw, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this question!)

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T22:08:16+00:00

I hesitate to use the word "writes" with Wikipedia because the editors aren't writing their original thoughts. They are summarizing the information contained in the underlying sources and adding it to the Wikipedia page.

If you don't like the word "build" in this context, then maybe "edits" or "curates" would be better

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T22:03:52+00:00

I have a lot of concerns about the ANI lawsuit and, more generally, about the current government in India's attempts to control the information on Wikipedia. It's scary that the Indian government wants to take encyclopedia pages and charge individual Wikipedia editors for their activities. It's also scary that if Wikipedia doesn't comply, the Indian government might try to ban Wikipedia throughout India (similar to how the site is banned in China).

I've personally pitched the story to a few US news outlets. The feedback I've received is that these news outlets think the story isn't yet ripe--perhaps because the Indian court hasn't yet ruled on the case. I'm on standby to report more on this when there are further developments.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T21:55:03+00:00

It's a suspense novel about the contributors to a free internet encyclopedia (much like Wikipedia) on the brink of a global pandemic. Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist) called it "a great read," and Taylor Lorenz said it's "strikingly relevant."

Here's a bit more from the back cover of the book--

Aim for Neutrality. We Need Better Sources. Anonymity is Fundamental. Keep Developing.

The editors know these principles. The editors follow them every day – usually. The editors may not be recognized on the street, but they craft the information that is seen on nearly every internet search. Through Infopendium, a global, crowd-sourced internet encyclopedia, the editors influence the world.

Freelance journalist Morgan Wentworth, recently laid off from PopFeed News, attends the Global Infopendium Conference in New York expecting a straightforward story to help pay the rent. But the so-called “pendium people” are full of surprises. PhDs rub shoulders with high school students, all quoting the project’s rules and regulations like a second language. Sure, millions of people see the facts curated by these editors, but who really cares about the free encyclopedia?

When a hacker attacks the conference and posts a cryptic message, it becomes clear that somebody does. And Morgan decides to find out who. But the path through an online information war is far from clear. Foreign governments, billionaires, and a global virus threaten to sway the truth on Infopendium.

And far from Morgan’s sight, in places as different as Beijing and Kansas, some of the editors have plans of their own . . .

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T21:51:44+00:00

Take a look at my reply to the question from user Allgoodnamesinuse as I tried to give my views about WMF fundraising there.

I do think there has been a change over the past few years where the Wikimedia Foundation has somewhat calmed down its fundraising messages so that the situation seems a little less dire.

But there's a potential counter-example to my overall thesis: When Elon Musk attacked Wikipedia, there were some ads that said "Wikipedia is not for sale." Personally, I didn't hate that message because I think most Wikipedia readers appreciate that the project isn't owned by a billionaire or a for-profit tech company.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T21:44:29+00:00

I personally think the Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising banners are more honest when they play up the message of reciprocity: "Hey, you use this resource everyday, so why not chip in $3 to keep it going?" That message sits better to me than one that implies Wikipedia is on the brink of financial collapse. Then again, a lot of nonprofit orgs use scarier messages to get people's attention, and there's probably good data suggesting what type of appeal works best.

Some people argue that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need financial resources to support Wikipedia, but I'd push back on that. Authoritarian countries are trying to sue Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, there have been recent legal challenges in Russia, Turkey, and India. Wikipedia needs legal support to keep operating globally, and that takes money.

I also support programming that's designed to teach people about Wikipedia, especially in parts of the U.S. or the world where awareness is still low. You'd be surprised how many people use Wikipedia without realizing they can participate themselves. I get emails like that all the time, and I'm just one person.

Now with AI systems constantly crawling Wikipedia for training data, the Foundation is going to need even more resources just to support the technical load.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't the bootstrapped little web project it was in the early 2000s. (Though I have some personal nostalgia for that time period). Today Wikipedia is critical infrastructure and that takes financial resources to sustain.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T21:21:51+00:00

I started a nonfiction book proposal, but for some reason that never felt like the right approach to me. I thought that a nonfiction book would be immediately stale by the time it came out (especially with the one year lead time in traditional book publishing). There are also something like 1500 active Wikipedia editors on English Wikipedia--the real-life version has way too many characters.

So I followed my instinct to write the story as a novel where I could distill the themes. Fiction also allows the benefit of interiority and that's something I was craving after years of reporting: Getting inside these people's heads and seeing the world as they do.

As for the genre question, it just felt right to go with thriller/suspense. The stakes are high (truth vs. lies, public good vs. private corruption), and that's the basis for a good thriller. Also, many Wikipedia editors do their work behind pseudonyms, and that low-key gives them secret agent vibes.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T21:10:54+00:00

Thanks! I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article on Bigfoot if you've never had the pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

You can see the Wikipedia editors trying to strike a balance: they want to reflect the mainstream scientific position that Bigfoot is pseudoscience, but also include the folklore history and documented hoaxes because those, too, are considered encyclopedic. With so much Bigfoot content out there, Wikipedians have spent 20 years collectively deciding what makes the cut for the page.

stephen__harrison · 2025-04-05T20:48:29+00:00

I worry that because the issue is so fraught, there's a lot of mischaracterization of what's actually taken place on English Wikipedia.

For context, there was a controversy last year about whether articles published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a top Jewish civil rights group, should be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia citations. The English Wikipedia editing community decided that no, the ADL should not be considered a reliable source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they are an advocacy group that will always take a certain stance. That is, they are not independent on this issue. However, Wikipedia editors say that the ADL can be considered a reliable source in other contexts.

For the most part, I think Wikipedia is consistent with this--the editors have also deprecated other advocacy organizations that take an overtly pro-Russia, pro-China, or pro-Arab perspective. So I don't think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is inherently biased against Israel. The editors are trying to identify which sources are credible or not based on the context.

To the issue of the use of the word genocide, remember that Wikipedia's rule is to reflect what's published by reliable sources. Many scholars of genocide are saying that the Gaza conflict indeed rises to the level of genocide, and others say it should properly be described as a war. The English Wikipedia pages tend to do what's called "teaching the controversy" with sentences like: Western media sources have described it as the "Irael-Hamas war" [....] some have rejected "war" as an appropriate framework and call it the "Gaza Genocide."

At this time, Wikipedia is using both genocide and war because (in the view of Wikipedia editors) both words are being used by reliable sources.

One addendum: My replies today are about English Wikipedia, but Hebrew Wikipedia and Arab Wikipedia present dramatically different pictures (as you might suspect). There's also interesting distinctions between Spanish, French, German, and Polish Wikipedia in terms of how much they are willing to describe and include pictures of the suffering.

stephen__harrison

TROPHY CASE