Wikipedia’s Existential Challenges Appear More Pressing Than Ever

In 2010, the FBI delivered a letter to Wikipedia that would be unsettling for any organization to receive.

This correspondence demanded the removal of the FBI’s logo from an article about the agency, asserting that the unauthorized use of the emblem could lead to fines, imprisonment, or both. Instead of capitulating, a lawyer representing the Wikimedia Foundation responded decisively, explaining that the FBI’s interpretation of the relevant law was misguided and stated that Wikipedia was “prepared to defend our position in court.” This approach succeeded—the FBI rescinded their request.

However, this exchange was grounded in a society that values the rule of law, where a government entity would consider legal arguments rather than simply exert its authority. Fast-forward to today, and the landscape has significantly changed. Elon Musk has labeled Wikipedia “Wokepedia,” claiming it is governed by extreme left activists. Last fall, Tucker Carlson produced a 90-minute podcast criticizing Wikipedia as “completely dishonest and completely controlled on important issues.” Following accusations of “information manipulation” by Republican representatives James Comer and Nancy Mace during a congressional inquiry, the foundation responded with a thoughtful explanation of Wikipedia’s operations, opting for a diplomatic tone rather than contesting governmental authority. This pragmatic shift indicates a world where the Trump administration influences outcomes based on political lines.

As Wikipedia marks its 25th anniversary today, it confronts numerous challenges. Political forces on the right have assailed Wikipedia for perceived liberal bias, with the conservative Heritage Foundation claiming it will “identify and target” the site’s volunteer editors. AI bots have been incessantly scraping Wikipedia’s content, putting pressure on the site’s servers. In addition to these challenges, there’s an ongoing struggle to rejuvenate the project’s volunteer base, reflecting what some call the graying of Wikipedia.

Underlying these threats is a troubling sentiment that the culture has strayed from Wikipedia’s founding principles. Striving for neutrality, assessing sources, volunteering for the collective good, and maintaining a non-commercial online platform—these ideals now seem outdated at best and irrelevant at worst in today’s overtly partisan, lawless, and profit-driven internet.

Yet, there is still hope that Wikipedia’s most impactful days are ahead, provided it adapts to meet current challenges.

Bernadette Meehan, the new CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, who has a background as a foreign service officer and ambassador, is well-equipped to tackle these challenges, according to chief communications officer Anusha Alikhan. “Her diplomacy and negotiation skills will be valuable in today’s climate,” she told WIRED. However, even the most skilled diplomats face formidable hurdles: The UK is considering age restrictions for Wikipedia under its Online Safety Act. In Saudi Arabia, Wikipedia contributors have been jailed for documenting human rights violations in the country. Meanwhile, the Great Firewall continues to block all versions of the site for mainland China.

More revealing is the concern expressed within the Wikipedia community itself, where veteran contributors worry about the platform’s waning significance. In a widely shared essay, longtime editor Christopher Henner expressed his fear that Wikipedia may turn into a “temple” filled with aging volunteers, proud of contributions that no one pays attention to anymore.

In addition to ongoing censorship struggles, Wikipedia faces the challenge of justifying the value of human efforts in an era dominated by artificial intelligence. Although nearly every significant AI system relies on Wikipedia’s freely licensed content, the narrative from the tech industry since 2022 has suggested that human-driven knowledge creation has become irrelevant due to AI. This, however, is misleading. While we are still amidst the early stages of the AI revolution, it appears that AI applications perform better when trained on human-authored and vetted information—exactly the kind produced through human-centered editorial processes like those of Wikipedia. When an AI system recursively trains on its own synthetic data, it is likely to encounter issues such as model collapse.