Why Crowdsourcing Wikipedia is the Most Revolutionary Idea of the Century

New Scientist: Your Go-To Source for Science News and Insights

In today’s digital landscape, hostility often overshadows collaboration. Remarkably, Wikipedia—a publicly editable encyclopedia—has emerged as a leading knowledge resource worldwide. “While it may seem improbable in theory, it remarkably works in practice,” states Anusha Alikan from the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia.

Founded by Jimmy Wales in 2001, Wikipedia continues to thrive, although co-founder Larry Sanger left the project the following year and has since expressed ongoing criticism, claiming it is “overrun by ideologues.”

Nonetheless, Sanger’s opinions are not widely echoed. Wikipedia boasts over 64 million articles in 300+ languages, generating an astonishing 15 billion hits monthly. Currently, it ranks as the 9th most visited website globally. “No one could have anticipated it would become such a trusted online resource, yet here we are,” Arikan commented.

Building trust on a massive scale is no small achievement. Although the Internet has democratized access to human knowledge, it often presents fragmented and unreliable information. Wikipedia disrupts this trend by allowing anyone to contribute, supported by approximately 260,000 volunteers worldwide, making an impressive 342 edits per minute. A sophisticated system grants broader editing rights to responsible contributors, fostering trust that encourages collaboration even among strangers.

Wikipedia also actively invites special interest groups to create and edit content. For instance, the Women in Red project tackles gender disparities, while other initiatives focus on climate change and the history of Africa. All articles uphold strict accuracy standards, despite critics like Sanger alleging bias.

As an anomaly in the technology sector, Wikipedia operates without advertising, shareholders, or profit motives. It has maintained this unique position for over two decades with great success.

However, the rise of artificial intelligence poses new challenges. AI can generate misleading content, deplete resources in training efforts, and lead to diminished website traffic and decreased donations due to AI-driven search summaries.

Topics:

  • Artificial Intelligence/
  • Internet

Source: www.newscientist.com

Charlie Kirk Ranks as Most Read Article on Wikipedia in 2025

The Wikipedia article on Charlie Kirk became the most read article of the year on the online encyclopedia as users searched for details about conservative activists.

Kirk’s entries were viewed around 45 million times, particularly following his tragic shooting during a college debate on September 10.

While Kirk was already recognized in the U.S. as a co-founder of Turning Point USA, his death captured global attention. According to data from the Wikimedia Foundation, over 40% of the traffic on the most-read English Wikipedia articles in 2025 originated from outside the U.S.

In second place is Wikipedia’s annual compilation of notable deaths. Last year’s most popular item was the notable losses list for 2024.

The third spot featured Ed Gein, the infamous American serial killer highlighted in Season 3 of Netflix’s Monster, a true crime anthology series.

Wikipedia celebrated its 25th anniversary on January 15. Thanks to the efforts of 250,000 volunteer writers and editors, it continues to serve as a trustworthy information source. The entries are based on a few fundamental principles: utilize public and reliable sources, and refrain from publishing personal opinions or novel interpretations.

Additionally, two more U.S. public figures made it into the top five. This marks Donald Trump’s eighth appearance on the annual list, alongside Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV.

Entries related to movies and TV shows consistently feature in the Top 20, largely due to the “second screen” phenomenon, where viewers check their phones while watching films or shows.

Both the Sinners and Superman films made the overall top 10, with Netflix’s show Adolescence reaching 17th place for the year, peaking in views shortly after its release due to the viral success of the tetralogy.

Entries for the acclaimed Apple TV series Severance saw viewings nearly triple from the first season in 2022 to the second season this year. Wikimedia also raised concerns about the growing popularity of movie and TV show summaries on the platform.

U.S. politics accounted for a quarter of the top 20, with Zoran Mamdani’s remarkable run for New York mayor landing him in the top 10, right behind Elon Musk. YouTuber MrBeast also made his debut in the top 20.

Most read Wikipedia pages in 2025

  1. Charlie Kirk, 44.9m page views

  2. Number of deaths in 2025: 42.5 million people

  3. Ed Gein, 31.2m

  4. Donald Trump, 25.1m

  5. Pope Leo XIV, 22.1m

  6. Elon Musk, 20.2m

  7. Zoran Mamdani, 20.1m

  8. Sinner (2025 movie), 18.2m

  9. Ozzy Osbourne, 17.8m

  10. Superman (2025 movie), 17m

  11. Pope Francis, 15.3m

  12. Severance (TV series), 13.9m

  13. America, 13m

  14. Thunderbolt*, 12.9m

  15. Weapon (2025 movie), 11.8m

  16. JD Vance, 11.6m

  17. Adolescence (TV series), 11.6m

  18. Mr. Beast, 11.5m

  19. Cristiano Ronaldo, 10.8m

  20. Fantastic Four: First Steps, 10.8m

Source: www.theguardian.com

How One Man Has Made Over 6 Million Edits to Wikipedia and Counting

Have you ever turned to Wikipedia for information? If so, there’s a high likelihood that you’ve come across contributions from Stephen Pruitt. Under his elaborate pen name “Ser Amantio di Nicolao,” Pruitt has amassed over 6 million edits and authored more than 33,000 articles – the highest number for any individual in the almost 25-year lifespan of the site.

Since initiating his editing journey in 2004, Pruitt has subtly emerged as one of the most significant figures on the internet. He is responsible for at least one edit on a third of all English entries, tackling a wide range of topics from historical figures to refining grammar, citations, and formatting.

In 2017, Time magazine recognized him as one of the 25 most impactful people online, sharing the honor with figures like Donald Trump and Kim Kardashian.

Mr. Pruitt holds such a pivotal role in Wikipedia that the platform’s founder, Jimmy Wales, has personally met him and referred to him as “a very prolific editor.”














Wales emphasized that Wikipedia’s strength relies not only on its most active contributors but also on the variety of editorial styles that keep the site thriving.

“We aim to move away from the notion of ‘edit count’ as a measure of activity,” Wales commented to BBC Science Focus.

“Clearly, if someone has six million edits, they are an extremely active Wikipedian. However, there are others who edit less frequently, taking time to do research before returning to contribute thoughtfully, which is equally crucial, unlike merely performing maintenance with scripts and tools.”

“We require all types of contributors to compile this body of knowledge.”

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales hailed Stephen Pruitt’s contributions as “absolutely incredible.” – Credit: Getty

Pruitt was born in San Antonio, Texas, in 1984, raised in Virginia, and earned a degree in art history from the College of William & Mary. His inaugural Wikipedia entry focused on his distant relative, Peter Francisco, a Revolutionary War hero known as “Virginia Hercules.”

Now, Pruitt dedicates several hours each day to editing, often utilizing software tools to automate repetitive tasks. He is also an active participant in the Women in Red project, which strives to bridge the gender gap on Wikipedia by creating entries for notable women who lack representation.

“Sometimes it’s odd to think that a third of Wikipedia was contributed by one individual,” says Wales. “Well, in reality, one person has contributed to a third of it, which is astounding. But his contributions largely consist of refining grammar, ensuring accurate spelling, and fixing references – the technical aspects that enhance its quality, which is crucial.”

When questioned by CBS Morning in 2019 about his dedication to Wikipedia, Pruitt simply stated, “I’m captivated by the idea of providing free access to all information. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union, making me acutely aware of what it means to make knowledge and information freely available.”

Read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Judge States Wikipedia Can Contest Online Safety Laws If Stricter Regulations Are Enforced

Wikimedia operators have received approval from a High Court judge to contest the online safety legislation when deemed a high-risk platform, which imposes the most stringent requirements.

The Wikimedia Foundation warns that if OFCOM classifies it as a Category 1 provider later this summer, it will be compelled to limit access to the site in order to meet regulatory standards.

As a nonprofit entity, the organization stated it “faces significant challenges in addressing the substantial technical and staffing demands” required to adhere to its obligations, which include user verification, stringent user protection measures, and regular reporting responsibilities to mitigate the spread of harmful content.


The Wikimedia Foundation estimates that to avoid being categorized as a Category 1 service, the number of UK users accessing Wikipedia would need to decrease by approximately three-quarters.

Wikipedia asserts it is unlike other platforms expected to be classified as Category 1 providers, such as Facebook and Instagram, due to its charitable nature and the fact that users typically interact only with content that interests them.

Judge Johnson declined to challenge Wikipedia’s status in court for various reasons but emphasized that the site “offers tremendous value for freedom of speech and expression,” noting that the verdict would not provide Ofcom or the government a mandate to impose regulations that would severely limit Wikipedia’s operations.

He stated that the classification of Wikipedia as a Category 1 provider “must be justified as proportionate if it does not infringe upon the right to freedom of expression,” but added that it was “premature” to enforce such a classification as Ofcom had not yet determined it to be a Category 1 service.

Should Ofcom deem Wikipedia a Category 1 service, which would jeopardize its current operations, Johnson suggested that technology secretary Peter Kyle “should consider altering the regulations or exempting this category of services from the law,” highlighting that Wikipedia could confront further challenges if this were not addressed.

“We are pleased to report that we are actively engaging with the Wikimedia Foundation,” said Phil Brad Leishmieg, lead attorney for the organization. “While the ruling does not provide immediate legal protection for Wikipedia as we had sought, it accentuates the responsibilities facing Ofcom and the UK government regarding the implementation of the Online Safety Act.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

“The judge has recognized the issues caused by the misalignment of OSA classifications and obligations concerning Wikipedia’s ‘significant value, user safety, and the human rights of Wikipedia volunteer contributors.’

Government KC Cecilia Aibimee stated that the minister has taken OFCOM’s guidance into account, specifically considering whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations, but ultimately decided against it. She remarked that Wikipedia was deemed “in principle an appropriate service necessitating Category 1 obligations,” and that the reasoning behind this decision was “neither unreasonable nor without justification.”

A government representative commented: “We are pleased with today’s High Court ruling. This will assist us in our ongoing efforts to implement online safety laws and foster a safer online environment for all.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Wikipedia Challenges UK Laws it Claims Threaten Its “Operation and Viability”

The charity that operates Wikipedia is contesting the UK’s online safety legislation in the High Court, arguing that certain regulations put the site at risk of “operation and vandalism.”

This case could mark the first judicial review concerning online safety laws. The Wikimedia Foundation contends that it faces the danger of being subjected to the stringent Category 1 obligations that impose additional requirements on the largest websites and applications.

The Foundation has stated that enforcing a Category 1 obligation could jeopardize the safety and privacy of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors, potentially leading to the manipulation and destruction of entries, while diverting resources away from the site’s protection and enhancement.

Phil Bradley Schmieg, the Foundation’s lead attorney, announced plans to pursue a judicial review of the classification regulations.

The Foundation clarifies that it is not disputing the entire act or the existence of the requirements but is questioning the process that determines how a platform is designated as Category 1.

These regulations were established in secondary legislation by technical secretary Peter Kyle. The Foundation is challenging Kyle’s decision to implement these statutory measures through a judicial review that evaluates the legality of decisions in the High Court of England and Wales.

According to one interpretation of the Category 1 obligations, the Foundation noted that if it opts not to authenticate Wikipedia users and editors, anonymous users would need to grant other contributors the power to block modifications or deletions of content. This is part of the legal measures aimed at addressing online trolling.

Consequently, thousands of volunteer editors would be required to undergo identity verification, conflicting with the Foundation’s commitment to minimizing data collection about its readers and contributors.

Violations of this law could result in penalties such as an £18 million fine or 10% of the company’s global revenue, and potentially, in extreme cases, access to services could be restricted in the UK.

Bradley-Schmieg emphasized that the volunteer community, which operates in over 300 languages, could face “data breaches, stalking, troubling litigation, and even incarceration by authoritarian regimes.”

“Privacy is fundamental to keeping our users safe and empowered. Designed for social media, this is just one of many Category 1 obligations that could severely impact Wikipedia,” he stated.

The Foundation argues that the definition of Category 1 services is both broad and ambiguous, encompassing the ability to share or display content. It also refers to “popular” sites, focusing on usage patterns rather than the nature of the platform’s use.

“I regret that the circumstances have compelled me to request a judicial review of the OSA classification regulations,” Bradley-Schmieg remarked. “It is particularly unfortunate that we must safeguard the privacy and security of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors from flawed legislation when the intent of the OSA is to make the online environment in the UK safer.”

In response, a spokesperson for the UK government stated, “We are dedicated to implementing online safety laws to foster a secure online space for everyone. We cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Curious about the end of the world? Check out this Wikipedia page on the topic

tHe’s the way the world ends: not with bangs, but… rounded? According to my favorite Wikipedia wormhole, it is the number of possible ways our universe can bite about 100 quin desirion (give or take several losses) into a bullet a few years from now. It’s just one.

To me, Wikipedia looks harmless A distant future timeline Page (along with its existentially miserable nature, The ultimate fate of the universe) The perfect encapsulation of the built-in dissonance of the Internet is monolithic in meaning, but in its presentation it is very pedestrian. It provides a heart-warming snapshot of scientific theory wrapped in boring color-coded spreadsheets. Catalogs the theoretical extinction of Y chromosomes five million years later.

Every year human history has its own dedicated Wikipedia page, 719BC (When Zhou Huan Wang clearly didn’t happen much other than becoming the ruler of China). Although nature has younger years than others, these pages generally provide useful TLs of major world events, famous births and deaths, astronomical phenomena.

However, if you scroll through the 2020s, you will see that 2026, 2027, 2028 and more continue. The cleverly dull Wikipedia interface remains unchanged in the cedees of recorded history Speculative history.

The audience at John Cage’s performance was as late as possible. This is scheduled to begin in 2001 and close in 2640. Photo: Markus Schreiber/AP

It is possible to surf Wikipedia in the very distant future. Each page provides the best guesses of the current year, ten years, century, or the millennium may have. In 2029, “Digital Time Capsule “Message from Earth” reaches the destination of Earth’s Gliese 581c.” In 2085, “Queen Elizabeth II’s “Secret” letter will be opened in Sydney.” In 2140, “It is expected that all of the approximately 21 million Bitcoins will be mined.”

It was a troubling combination of asteroid near misses, severe climate catastrophes, strange geopolitics, until around the 24th century, when he had the same surname in 2531, a “negative bear-spot paradox” in 2353. is. “John Cage’s organ’s performance in 639 will be as slow as possible,” he said in 2640.

It’s been a while since the movie was 2012. Will the world end up with “a big freeze, a big crunch, a big bounce, a big rift, or actually a big round lup?” Photo: Sony/Sportsphoto/Allstar

From there, all roads lead to a timeline of the distant future. Here we see the explosive red hyper-illusions that appear in the daytime sky, the addition of daily moments on Earth, planetary collisions, ocean evaporation, space-time singularities, pyramidal erosion, Mars terra formation, black holes, Boltzmann’s You can learn about brain erosion of the brain. The final ending ext of JavaScript (time of death: 275,760 September 13th).

Truly adventurous people can delve deeper into the ultimate fate of the universe, which reads like a tasting menu to completely disappear. Is it a big freeze, a big crunch, a big bounce, a big rift, or actually a big round thing?

Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, was not designed to induce emotions, but the pure spiritual weight of the information made me feel a bit of awe-inspiring. It may not be possible. When I read these completely benign “Astro Engineering Project” and “Femtosecond Laser Etched Nanostructures”, I feel my little human brain stabbing against the limits of that imagination You can do it.

Some people have explained that they are in a small mood in honor, looking up at the stars on a sunny night. Scrolling through these Wikipedia pages and reading history before it happens, I get the same feeling. My little desk, my little keyboard is doing my little work, and my head is in the world where future archaeologists identify the “urban strata” of fossilized coastal cities I’m trying to wrap it around. Next, close all browser tabs and compete for Pilates.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Spanish women are making history by addressing gender disparities on Wikipedia

P In a feminist bookstore in Madrid, 17 women gathered in the back room, engrossed in their laptops, sharing snacks, chatting, and laughing. The room was filled with the sounds of typing, periodically interrupted by enthusiastic applause marking milestones in the group’s mission to close one of the world’s most persistent gender gaps.

Only about 15 percent of Wikipedia’s content, including biographies, focuses on women, explains Patricia Horrillo, who has dedicated the past decade to cultivating a community of Wikipedia editors committed to creating content that highlights women.

Groups like Spain’s WikiSfera, Italy’s Wikidonne, and Switzerland’s Les Sans Pages have emerged globally to address this gender gap issue on Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation acknowledges the historical biases within Wikipedia and the need for more diverse contributions to address these gaps. Organizations like Horrillo’s Wikiesfera have received support to help bridge this divide and give visibility to women’s achievements.

Encina Villanueva participated in a Wikipedia content creation workshop at La Fabulosa bookstore, where she emphasized the importance of recognizing women’s accomplishments beyond their appearances or associations. She has seen the impact of her work reverberate across the internet, amplifying women’s stories.

Celia Hernandez-Garcia, a middle school teacher, joined Wikiesfera to highlight women’s achievements often overlooked in textbooks. With no prior tech skills, she embraced the opportunity to elevate women’s narratives through Wikipedia, impacting her students’ understanding of history.

Horrillo’s vision for Wikiesfera began a decade ago, aiming to empower individuals to contribute to Wikipedia by addressing barriers beyond technical knowledge. Despite challenges, the group continues its efforts to increase female representation on the platform.

Though obstacles such as a lack of sources documenting women’s achievements persist, Wikiesfera remains committed to bridging the gender gap on Wikipedia. Each article added during their sessions represents a step towards rectifying the systemic invisibility of women in historical narratives.

Source: www.theguardian.com