Re: Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call (essay)

Movement Strategy efforts have relied in part on the Foundation hiring 
consultants who could assist in framing discussion, and also provide 
some of the sustained presence that makes it easier for volunteers to 
contribute even when they can only do so with intermittent intention. 
Could that be helpful piece of responding to this call? I think it might 
need to be something more than a small working group.

To add, I very much appreciate Nada's additional perspective, which 
brings in ideas we don't hear as often. More input like it would be welcome.

--Michael Snow

On 7/1/2026 11:24 PM, Christophe Henner via Wikimedia-l wrote:
> <3 <3 <3 for your answers it means a lot :)
>
> @Risker second time in a few weeks I'm very jealous of a message you 
> wrote and I was like "yes exactly that".
>
> To answer some of your questions, the discussion isn't happening 
> anywhere. I've been trying on Telegram, Discord, Wiki, here... very 
> little reactions. Of course, people pushing back doesn't help, but 
> also we do know what it takes to be able to have the discussion, 
> investment.
>
> You were in the midst of the early Movement Strategy steps, and to be 
> able to get those kind of discussion to happen it needs a loooot of 
> intent. Those are scary discussions and they need to be fostered, 
> cared, nurtured. We're talking about things that are stressful and 
> people need a clear "place" to have those discussions in a proper 
> setting. That "place" isn't so much a location as an intention (not 
> sure this translated well).
>
> And that can't be a volunteer driven effort at our scale, and it can't 
> be small either. We have a blueprint, learnings, etc... to build on.
>
> @Pine you are right, and I may give it a try to the diff idea. But 
> like you, I'm a volunteer and there is so much energy and "emotion" I 
> can pour by myself. It would be eaiser if it was a more 
> vocally/visibly shared concern.
>
> @Nada I'm suggesting a small working group that preps the work for the 
> community to have the discussion. It's not about making decisions but 
> making the discussions possible. But that's one possibility, another 
> could be to take 2030 recommendations and implement those that are 
> still relevant and rework the other in some ways. Or to decide 
> collectively on ways to cut through the red tape to make our movement 
> as a whole faster, there are many angles and a lot of them complementary.
>
> But when statistically we will have lost 50% of our traffic in 3 to 5 
> years, we need to act, fast and together.
>
>
> --
> Christophe
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 06:08, nada alfarra via Wikimedia-l 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     I read Christophe's essay closely. I agree with most of the
>     diagnosis, but I want to push back on part of the cure, and add a
>     point about outreach. However, I didn't read the whole the
>     discussion, so forgive any redundancy.
>
>     *What I think is right*
>     The equity gap is the real story. English Wikipedia is far ahead
>     of editions in languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people.
>     The billions who came online since 2016 mostly came from the
>     Global South. We were not ready for them. That is not a side
>     issue, it is the main reason we are falling behind.
>
>     The "process is the product" point is also right. Anyone can copy
>     our content. No one can copy our editing history, our talk pages,
>     our sourcing standards, or the trust that comes from years of open
>     argument and correction. That process is worth protecting and
>     worth building products around.
>     Spreading our income beyond donation banners also makes sense.
>     Relying on one source of money is risky, especially as fewer
>     people visit the site directly.
>
>     *Where I disagree*
>     The essay asks for a small, closed group to make big decisions
>     fast, without the usual community process. I understand the
>     impatience, but our credibility comes from being slow, open, and
>     argued-over in public. If we skip that to move faster, we risk
>     losing the very thing that makes people trust our content. Speed
>     and legitimacy are in tension here, and the essay doesn't really
>     deal with that.
>
>     I'm also cautious about selling "verified" data to AI companies.
>     It could help fund the movement, but it could also pull the
>     Foundation's incentives away from the volunteer editors who create
>     the value in the first place. Editors should benefit from this
>     too, not just supply the raw material for a new revenue line.
>
>     *On outreach*
>     I don't think our real problem is trust. People still see
>     Wikipedia as reliable. What we're losing is presence. AI tools and
>     influencers aren't more trustworthy than us, they're just closer
>     to where people already are. A student asking an AI chatbot a
>     question isn't rejecting Wikipedia, they just never see us in that
>     moment.
>
>     That changes the question. It's not "why don't people trust us,"
>     it's "why are we absent from the tools people actually use." It
>     also changes the timeline. Rebuilding readership at scale,
>     reversing a generational shift in how people consume knowledge,
>     that's slow and may not happen in two years. But changing where
>     and how we show up, meeting people inside their AI tools, search
>     results, and study apps, is faster and more within our control.
>
>     I'd also push on who we're trying to reach. Instead of asking "is
>     Wikipedia relevant to everyone," maybe we ask who specifically
>     needs it most and design for them. Students are an obvious group.
>     Right now, new editors, especially students learning the craft,
>     get reverted fast and rarely come back. If we want the next
>     generation of contributors, the on-ramp needs to be forgiving, not
>     punishing. Let people practice, get it wrong, and learn, the way
>     any skill is learned. A student who edits badly once and gets shut
>     down never comes back. A student who edits badly once and gets
>     guided through it becomes an editor.
>
>     *What I would prioritize*
>     Two separate problems, two different timelines. Fix outreach fast:
>     meet people where they already are. Fix the readership shift slow
>     and deliberately, with the community, not against it. And invest
>     seriously in editors and readers in underrepresented languages and
>     regions, because that is where our future actually is.
>
>     On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 23:41 Christophe Henner,
>     <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>         Hey everyone,
>
>         I struggled with the object, the most honest one would be
>         "Last exit before irrelevance" but that would be a bit violent.
>
>         So, Wikipedia turns 25 next week. I've been here for over
>         twenty of those years, including stints chairing Wikimedia
>         France and the Foundation Board. And honestly? I'm worried.
>         Scared to be honnest.
>
>         Over the last years, I've been regularly crunching data and
>         sharing on different channels my worries. But in the last few
>         weeks I decided to make a much more structured "essay" of my
>         findings
>
>         Since 2016, the internet nearly doubled in size.
>
>         Our page views? Down. New editor sign-ups? Down 36%.
>
>         The people keeping this thing running are working harder than
>         ever, but there are fewer of them every year.
>
>         I wrote it all up: the numbers, what I think went wrong, what
>         I think we need to do about it. Fair warning: it's long, it's
>         opinionated, and some of it will probably make you mad.
>
>         *Here it is:
>         *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/what-now
>
>         I'm not trying to be doom and gloom for the sake of it. I
>         genuinely believe we have maybe two years to make some hard
>         calls about AI, about money, about who we're actually serving.
>         After that, the window closes and we become irrelevant.
>
>         Could be wrong. Hope I am. But I'd rather we have this
>         argument now than wish we had later. Well I'd rather we had
>         this argument two or four years ago, but now we will make do.
>
>         Read it, tell me where I'm off base. Let's argue and debate.
>         That's what talk pages are for, right?
>
>         PS: Foundation board mailing list is bcc'ed, change cannot
>         happen without their commitment. And fast.
>
>         --
>
>         Christophe
>         _______________________________________________
>         Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>         guidelines at:
>         https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>         https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>         Public archives at
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/X3SQ2WA7QF2XS56XV2EOPDPUZ6UQPCR4/
>         To unsubscribe send an email to
>         wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>     guidelines at:
>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>     https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>     Public archives at
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/BS4GFOIFG6BTFBIY56ZKRECIX5A3YKHM/
>     To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected], guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/6I43D764UJLMQR3XH5DMU6VYREFRRV3W/
> To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/VCLLEAFH2FNFDCDGUQAJZBT55C3TYTV6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org