This part stuck out to me:

Large language models trained on our content are now answering questions directly. When someone asks ChatGPT or Gemini a factual question, they get an answer synthesized partly from our 25 years of work, but they never visit our site, never see our citation standards, never encounter our editing community. The value we created flows outward without attribution, without reciprocity, without any mechanism for us to benefit or even to verify how our knowledge is being used.

posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:54 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]

This is very long, so I’m only about halfway through, but you’re right: it’s definitely of great interest, and Henner identifies a bunch of uncomfortable truths and generates some interesting ideas about what to do next.

I’m not sure it’s possible to summarize this whole thing well, but the essential issue behind the article is this:

From 2016-2025, the number of Internet users has grown by 83%, from 3.3B to 6.0B

From 2016-2025, the number of Wikipedia page views has dropped by 9%, from 194B to 177B

And this bit from the middle of the piece lays out much of Henner’s argument:

OpenAI already trained on our content. Google already did. The question isn’t whether AI will use Wikipedia. It already has. The question is whether we’ll have any say in how, whether we’ll benefit from it, whether we’ll shape the terms. Right now, the answer to all three is no.

...

The Trust crisis

Misinformation doesn’t just compete with accurate information. It actively undermines the infrastructure of truth. Every day, bad actors work to pollute the information ecosystem. Wikipedia has been, for 25 years, a bulwark against this tide. Our rigorous sourcing requirements, our neutral point of view policy, our transparent editing history. These are battle-tested tools for establishing what’s true.

But a bulwark no one visits is just a monument. We need to be in the fight, not standing on the sidelines.

I think Henner is really on to something: the immense value of verified information. I hope there’s some substantive discussion, and action, around his ideas in the coming year.

As an aside: I edit Wikipedia (and I say that with pride and celebration!), but I didn’t know The Signpost existed. I’m glad I know now.

I think you’re right, bluerasberry - this is unusually important, and I am very glad you shared it. I’m going to try to give it more attention over the coming days, and see if there are ways I can help. Wikipedia is immensely valuable to me, and I would like to help it not just survive, but thrive. Thank you for sharing this here. posted by kristi at 9:02 AM on January 15