At 25, Wikipedia faces a double threat: the rise of AI and the decline of local media— Human visitors declined in 2025, while AI crawlers are on the rise
At 25, Wikipedia faces a double threat: the rise of AI and the decline of local media— Human visitors declined in 2025, while AI crawlers are on the rise
“Dismissing Wikipedia” is my political litmus test.
To be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school. You take everything written on it with a grain of salt.
…But it’s still an oasis in a desert.
When some of my family started questioning its utility because of its “liberal bias,” like post-grad-educated family saying this as Fox News blares in the background, I knew things had gotten bad.
I haven’t seen any extreme left question it IRL, but I’m afraid that’s coming too, with how tankies a some terminally online bits of Reddit are skeptical of it.
To be clear, it’s never been a reliable source; we learned that in middle school.
Someone must have skipped middle school when you didn’t learn what “citations” are.
We certainly did. We learned Chicago/APA style, types of sources, and how to make citations in reports.
And that Wikipedia is not appropriate as a source to cite.
And that Wikipedia is not appropriate as a source to cite.
That’s why you use Wikipedia as means of sourcing the citations. You look up an article, learn about it through Wiki, then further educate yourself on the topic through the citations.
Exactly!
Users generally don’t check citations though; they read and make a judgement. This is why Wikipedia, with all its flaws, is still such a valuable resource to me, as at least it’s built on citations.