Re: Do we even know what a good AI Optimization strategy would be for Wikipedia? Re: Re: Google Zero is coming [was Re: Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call (essay)]
Charles Roberson via Wikimedia-l <[email protected]> Sat, 11 Jul 2026 02:03:21 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALPDdNOwVMaMsFtNmEXM-CEeA5eD6sb8Nsw-cZJkG5ajZxHM+A@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============7407182267144621790== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea228f06564f9d39" --000000000000ea228f06564f9d39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wikimedia-I used to be a premium listserve of high minded ideas about how to move the Foundation into the future. The past few months it has drifted into a lot of whining about AI with no real effort to accomplish anything or even plan to do so. - Charles On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 1:44=E2=80=AFAM Todd Allen via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > We sure do know what a good AI strategy looks like for Wikipedia. No AI o= n > Wikipedia. > > We have not succeeded by being FaceGramTwitTube. We have succeeded by not > being like them. > > So, same here. No "latest and greatest". No AI on Wikipedia. Ever, for an= y > reason, period. Wikipedia is written by people for people. > > Todd > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 11:09=E2=80=AFPM James Heilman via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> What has motivated me to spend time writing Wikipedia over the years is >> writing for humans. The fact that the content is openly licensed and the >> work is supported by an NGO is also key. >> >> Personally i do not feel any motivation to write primarily for trillion >> dollar machines surrounded by venture capital folks hoping to make a >> killing. If the machines want to adapt to human facing content sure. >> >> The approaches you mention is how Healthline succeeded, they basically >> have dozens of articles covering the same topic just addressing it from = a >> slightly different question. >> >> J >> >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 21:24 Alex Stinson via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Forking this conversation, because I don't think we have a shared >>> framing of what we are competing for in a "Google" Zero landscape domin= ated >>> by ChatBot/AI search style RAG citations (i.e. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation). >>> >>> For the last 9 months, I've been examining how civil society content >>> should be showing up in AI search, and there is a missing perspective i= n >>> our "we will build it and they will come" approach to Wikipedia. I don'= t >>> think we can wait for the big tech companies or European regulatory bod= ies >>> to adopt a different idea of how RAG should work. Here is my take fro= m >>> what I have been engaging with in the AIO/AEO/SEO space: >>> >>> *Wikipedia doesn't have content that is SEO/AEO optimized* >>> >>> Part of the problem, even if we did have an MCP server is that the >>> models (at least in my tracking), are pushing many citations away from >>> "factual" websites, towards "authoritative" websites. This authoritativ= e >>> content includes: >>> >>> - Expert original, analysis that makes strong claims based on facts >>> (i.e. blog posts by authoritative companies or recently published >>> ScienceDirect articles) >>> - Content that has been updated recently, with the biggest "hot >>> takes" (i.e. I have monitored a couple of prompt pools where citatio= ns >>> shift to newer content after 2-3 months) >>> - Content that helps users make a decision between different choices >>> (i.e. review websites, etc) >>> >>> >>> This is following Google's longer-term push towards "human centered and >>> useful" content (sometimes called E-E-A-T an abbreviation of experien= ce, >>> expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, in SEO world). >>> https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful= -content >>> >>> >>> To win in an AI optimization battle -- its less about Wikipedia doing >>> well in the keyword search indexes that led to our content being visibl= e >>> (which is why we have a reputation as a "fact checking" website) and mo= re >>> about "winning" in the criteria for what makes a good RAG citation --- = and >>> our content format, is the exact opposite of the EAAT criteria: >>> >>> - Wikipedia is not authoriative, but rather points to other >>> authorities >>> - We ground our content in anonymity instead of named experts or >>> instutional process/opinoin >>> - We rarely do original analysis instead summarizing the experience >>> and expertise of others, >>> - Alot of our content is out of date, and self-aware of its gaps >>> (i.e. maintenance tags), so also is likely to be undermining its own >>> trustworthiness >>> >>> >>> *All the data points to us being used, but without an official roundup >>> we are all talking in the dark about different assumed reputation losse= s* >>> >>> RAG unlike Google Search Indexing, seems to be using Wikipedia for a >>> fraction of a fraction of responses, favoring these other kinds of >>> sources: >>> >>> - Only 5% of AI overviews have Wikipedia in them: >>> https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-cited-domains-ai-overviews/ >>> - I have access to SERanking's corpus of prompt monitoring across 5 >>> models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Models and they suggest that in = May >>> ~16% of prompts included Wikipdia, and in their most recent month (J= une), >>> ~13% of prompts. SERankings corpus is probably the # 4 or 5 in comme= rcial >>> AIO data -- so could have gaps. >>> - Studies from earlier in the year put Wikipedia at about ~13% of >>> CHATGPT citations ( >>> https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-and-reddit-now-dr= ive-over-25-of-chatgpt-citations-in-the-us-new-5w-research-finds--wsj-nyt-a= nd-bloomberg-do-not-appear-in-the-top-20-302768339.html >>> but chatgpt on average includes >20 sources in a response, compared = to >>> googles 5-10 and doesn't expose it in the interface very well) >>> - Comparable "top" Websites, like Youtube, Reddit, and LinkedIn tend >>> to represent a greater % of content (in the SERanking data pool near= ly 30% >>> of responses had a Youtube Video cited for instance) >>> - Domain specific citation pools have pretty significant differences >>> in "which" sources are being called, with Wikipedia doing well on so= me >>> prompt pools: https://generativepulse.ai/report/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *RAG/AI search optimization focuses more on intent than keywords, and w= e >>> aren't very effective at serving intent, and we don't know where our >>> optimization options are* >>> What we need is an understanding of "which actual user reader behavior >>> are we seeking to serve?". In the past we were extremely lazy, because >>> keyword search always delivered Wikipedia as "a first". Now we need our >>> content to be more optimized for the kind of user curiosity driving the= ir >>> use of a chatbot/search tool: >>> >>> - What percentage of prompts or AI searches are informational vs >>> opinion forming? Are we even a competitor for grounding opinion base= d >>> questions or only the informational ones? >>> - How many of the interactions are two or three steps down a chain >>> of more "specific" interactions with the chatbot and thus no longer = need >>> "general knowledge" information from Wikipedia, but rather the kinds= of >>> stuff that we rely on our citations to provide ? >>> - How much are the AI companies optimizing for "sales" or >>> "addiction" rather than for leading users to reliable content? (I wa= s >>> tracking a series of informational topics about food that (on ChatGP= T and >>> Google), kept wanting me to continue the conversation by *inviting >>> me to go to local hamburger restraunts)*. Do we even have a >>> reasonable chance to be in those searches? >>> - How much is geolocation forcing more and more responses into >>> "local" sources rather than "global" websites? In one dataset I trac= ked, in >>> Global South countries citations were overwhelmingly to Facebook and >>> Instagram despite more authoritative academic, news and Wikipedia-ty= pe >>> sites in the same searches from the UK. >>> >>> >>> *We may need to radically change the "readable signals" on our content >>> pages, meaning changing the Manual of Style, Editing Practices, and AI >>> enabled enrichment.* >>> >>> If we are trying to market Wikipedia's content into AI interfaces, we >>> also can't do what most AI optimization/marketing agencies would sugges= t: >>> writing listicle/FAQ type content that closely matches the user-queries >>> that folks are giving the IA models (i.e. analysis like: >>> https://neilpatel.com/marketing-stats/trust-signals-ai-engines-reward-m= ost/ >>> ). >>> >>> We would then have to experiment with other content types, that _no >>> longer look like the encyclopedia_. Or we would need to be reconfigurin= g >>> the Encyclopedic content to expose enrichments to paragraphs or section= s >>> within the encyclopedia that pretty radically change editorial assupmt= ions >>> and our Manual of Style (i.e. instead of simple 1-2 word section headin= gs, >>> like "History" we may need intent-focused headings like "What is the >>> history of [x topic]?). >>> >>> If we want to compete in the shifting AI search landscape -- we would >>> need a lot more data from the Foundation on where we are succeeding or = not, >>> and then consider *_radically different_ *ways of exposing our content >>> in terms of treating RAG systems as a user that needs correct paths to >>> Wikipedia pages. >>> >>> However, this doesn't necessarily need to change the *human reader >>> experience *, but would need to be about configuring the content >>> (beyond an MCP server or Enterpise APIs) *for an AI audience/consumer >>> experience -- *which I haven't seen addressed in any WMF publications >>> or community conversations. Without a firm theory of "What kind of cons= umer >>> is an AI search agent/RAG index?" and "How does our content need to ser= ve >>> that AI audience?" the editing community won't be able to adjust its >>> editing practices or weigh in on feature recommendations that make our >>> content "AI useful". >>> >>> As I have written elsewhere, I think there is a inherent audience for >>> editing/using the Wikis organically: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-06-21/O= p-ed >>> -- but its a different question than competing "with other information >>> sources" for AI as an audience. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 2:30=E2=80=AFPM Steven Walling via Wikimedia-l = < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 9:52=E2=80=AFAM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 5:59=E2=80=AFPM James Heilman via Wikimedia-l >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Yah a search engine that actually gives real references that >>>>> supports the statements in question would be amazing. >>>>> >>>>> Almost like .. a Knowledge Engine. ;-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is the WMF building an MCP server to connect Wikipedia and Wikidata >>>> directly to Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT? This is a more lightweight, >>>> backdoor way to leverage the audience of those platforms but present >>>> structured outputs to AI chats for users based on Wikimedia knowledge.= If >>>> we did so, we could present citations within the returned responses to >>>> users, and those platforms make it transparent to the user when they a= re >>>> calling a particular tool. >>>> >>>> Steven Walling >>>> >>>> Sadly, the only realistic path I see there would be through >>>>> acquisition, and even if that was financially feasible, you'd begin b= y >>>>> inheriting a lot of corporate practices that aren't really consistent >>>>> with Wikimedia values. >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps there is a middle ground where Wikimedia seeks to define >>>>> more clearly the terms of engagement that it wants with search engine= s >>>>> (clear attribution, clear and correct references, calls-to-edit, >>>>> etc.), and then finds and recognizes search partners who implement >>>>> those. To Luis' point, that need not be done by WMF. >>>>> >>>>> Warmly, >>>>> >>>>> Erik >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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]= ia.org/message/HNDPDZBBDMILF7WGMUBVJVIAZYQ7OXOS/ >>>>> 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/Guideline= s >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]= a.org/message/IUDAKJRN5EQT5CCWEEYQXKDSVXCDBXR6/ >>>> 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]= .org/message/YODBKTCLA2XJC24Y23I2SUN3PUYA4QXE/ >>> 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]= org/message/5MPMZGZ2MXLLHER3NTNUS6KHIMAXIIBD/ >> 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]= rg/message/QAGHRXXTGSXKVFOALBRQHP5G27NUIFDD/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org --000000000000ea228f06564f9d39 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Wikimedia-I used to be a premium listserve=C2=A0of high mi= nded ideas about how to move the Foundation into the future. The past few m= onths it has drifted into a lot of whining about AI with no real effort to = accomplish anything or even plan to do so.<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0- Charl= es</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir= =3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 1:44=E2=80=AFAM Todd = Allen via Wikimedia-l <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class= =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg= b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>We sure do know what= a good AI strategy looks like for Wikipedia. No AI on Wikipedia.</div><div= ><br></div><div>We have not succeeded by being FaceGramTwitTube. We have su= cceeded by not being like them.</div><div><br></div><div>So, same here. No = "latest and greatest". No AI on Wikipedia. Ever, for any reason, = period. Wikipedia is written by people for people.</div><div><br></div><div= >Todd</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"g= mail_attr">On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 11:09=E2=80=AFPM James Heilman via Wikim= edia-l <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_bl= ank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote cl= ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid= rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">What has motivated me= to spend time writing Wikipedia over the years is writing for humans. The = fact that the content is openly licensed and the work is supported by an NG= O is also key.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Personall= y i do not feel any motivation to write primarily for trillion dollar machi= nes surrounded by venture capital folks hoping to make a killing. If the ma= chines want to adapt to human facing content sure.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><= br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The approaches you mention is how Healthline suc= ceeded, they basically have dozens of articles covering the same topic just= addressing it from a slightly different question.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"a= uto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">J</div><div><br clear=3D"all"><br clear=3D= "all"><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature">Sent from Gmail Mobil= e</div></div></div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" cla= ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 21:24 Alex Stinson via Wikimedia-= l <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class= =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg= b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Forking = this conversation, because I don't think we have a shared framing of wh= at we are competing for in a "Google" Zero landscape dominated by= ChatBot/AI search style RAG citations (i.e. <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedi= a.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation" target=3D"_blank">https://en.wik= ipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation</a>).<br><br>For the last 9 = months, I've been examining how civil society content should be showing= up in AI search, and there is a missing perspective in our "we will b= uild it and they will come" approach to Wikipedia. I don't think w= e can wait for the big tech companies or European regulatory bodies to adop= t a different idea of how RAG should work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Here is my take from= what I have been engaging with in the AIO/AEO/SEO space:<br><br><b>Wikiped= ia doesn't have content that is SEO/AEO optimized</b><br><br>Part of th= e problem, even if we did have an MCP server is that the models=C2=A0(at le= ast in my tracking), are pushing many citations away from "factual&quo= t; websites, towards "authoritative" websites. This authoritative= content includes:=C2=A0<br><ul><li>Expert original, analysis that makes st= rong claims based on facts (i.e. blog posts by authoritative companies or r= ecently published ScienceDirect articles)</li><li>Content that has been upd= ated recently, with the biggest "hot takes" (i.e. I have monitore= d a couple of prompt pools where citations shift to newer content after 2-3= months)</li><li>Content that helps users make a decision between different= choices (i.e. review websites, etc)</li></ul><br>This is following Google&= #39;s longer-term push towards "human centered and useful" conten= t (sometimes called=C2=A0=C2=A0E-E-A-T an abbreviation of=C2=A0 experience,= expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, in SEO world).=C2=A0<a = href=3D"https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-hel= pful-content" target=3D"_blank">https://developers.google.com/search/docs/f= undamentals/creating-helpful-content</a>=C2=A0<br><br>To win in an AI optim= ization battle -- its less about Wikipedia doing well in the keyword search= indexes that led to our content being visible (which is why we have a repu= tation as a "fact checking" website) and more about "winning= " in the criteria for what makes a good RAG citation --- and our conte= nt format, is the exact opposite of the EAAT criteria:=C2=A0<br><ul><li>Wik= ipedia is not authoriative, but rather points to other authorities</li><li>= We ground our content in anonymity instead of named experts or instutional = process/opinoin</li><li>We rarely do original analysis instead summarizing = the experience and expertise of others,=C2=A0</li><li>Alot of our content i= s out of date, and self-aware of its gaps (i.e. maintenance tags), so also = is likely to be undermining its own trustworthiness</li></ul><br><b>All the= data points to us being used, but without an official roundup we are all= =C2=A0talking in the dark about different assumed reputation losses</b><br>= <br>RAG unlike Google Search Indexing, seems to be using Wikipedia for a fr= action of a fraction of responses, favoring these other kinds of sources:= =C2=A0=C2=A0<br><ul><li>Only 5% of AI overviews have Wikipedia in them:=C2= =A0<a href=3D"https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-cited-domains-ai-overviews/" tar= get=3D"_blank">https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-cited-domains-ai-overviews/</a>= </li><li>I have access to SERanking's corpus of prompt monitoring acros= s 5 models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Models and they suggest that in May= ~16% of prompts included Wikipdia, and in their most recent month (June), = ~13% of prompts. SERankings corpus is probably the # 4 or 5 in commercial A= IO data -- so could have gaps.</li><li>Studies from earlier in the year put= Wikipedia at about ~13% of CHATGPT citations ( <a href=3D"https://www.prne= wswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-and-reddit-now-drive-over-25-of-chatgpt-= citations-in-the-us-new-5w-research-finds--wsj-nyt-and-bloomberg-do-not-app= ear-in-the-top-20-302768339.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.prnewswire.= com/news-releases/wikipedia-and-reddit-now-drive-over-25-of-chatgpt-citatio= ns-in-the-us-new-5w-research-finds--wsj-nyt-and-bloomberg-do-not-appear-in-= the-top-20-302768339.html</a> but chatgpt on average includes >20 source= s in a response, compared to googles 5-10 and doesn't expose it in the = interface very well)=C2=A0</li><li>Comparable "top" Websites, lik= e Youtube, Reddit, and LinkedIn tend to represent a greater % of content (i= n the SERanking data pool nearly 30% of responses had a Youtube Video cited= for instance)</li><li>Domain specific citation pools have pretty significa= nt differences in "which" sources are being called, with Wikipedi= a doing well on some prompt pools:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://generativepulse.= ai/report/" target=3D"_blank">https://generativepulse.ai/report/</a></li></= ul><br><br><b>RAG/AI search optimization focuses more on intent than keywor= ds, and we aren't very effective at serving intent, and we don't kn= ow where our optimization options are<br></b><br>What we need is an underst= anding of "which actual user reader behavior are we seeking to serve?&= quot;. In the past we were extremely lazy, because keyword search always de= livered Wikipedia as "a first". Now we need our content to be mor= e optimized for the kind of user curiosity driving their use of a chatbot/s= earch tool:=C2=A0<br><ul><li>What percentage of prompts or AI searches are = informational vs opinion forming? Are we even a competitor for grounding op= inion based questions or only the informational ones?</li><li>How many of t= he interactions are two or three steps down a chain of more "specific&= quot; interactions with the chatbot and thus no longer need "general k= nowledge" information from Wikipedia, but rather the kinds of stuff th= at we rely on our citations to provide ?=C2=A0</li><li>How much are the AI = companies optimizing for "sales" or "addiction" rather = than for leading users to reliable content? (I was tracking a series of inf= ormational topics about food that (on ChatGPT and Google), kept wanting me = to continue the conversation by <i>inviting me to go to local hamburger res= traunts)</i>. Do we even have a reasonable chance to be in those searches?<= /li><li>How much is geolocation forcing more and more responses into "= local" sources rather than "global" websites? In one dataset= I tracked, in Global South countries citations were overwhelmingly to Face= book and Instagram despite more authoritative academic, news and Wikipedia-= type sites in the same searches from the UK.</li></ul><br><b>We may need to= radically change the "readable signals" on our content pages, me= aning changing the Manual of Style, Editing Practices, and AI enabled enric= hment.</b><br><br>If we are trying to market Wikipedia's content into A= I interfaces, we also can't do what most AI optimization/marketing agen= cies would suggest: writing listicle/FAQ type content that closely matches = the user-queries that folks are giving the IA models (i.e. analysis like: <= a href=3D"https://neilpatel.com/marketing-stats/trust-signals-ai-engines-re= ward-most/" target=3D"_blank">https://neilpatel.com/marketing-stats/trust-s= ignals-ai-engines-reward-most/</a> ). <br><br>We would then have to experim= ent with other content types, that _no longer look like the encyclopedia_. = Or we would need to be reconfiguring the Encyclopedic content to expose enr= ichments to paragraphs or sections within the encyclopedia=C2=A0 that prett= y radically change editorial assupmtions and our Manual of Style (i.e. inst= ead of simple 1-2 word section headings, like "History" we may ne= ed intent-focused headings like "What is the history of [x topic]?).= =C2=A0<br><br>If we want to compete in the shifting AI search landscape -- = we would need a lot more data from the Foundation on where we are succeedin= g or not, and then consider <i>_radically different_ </i>ways of exposing o= ur content in terms of treating RAG systems as a user that needs correct pa= ths to Wikipedia pages.<br>=C2=A0<br>However, this doesn't necessarily = need to change the <i>human=C2=A0reader experience </i>, but would need to = be about configuring the content (beyond an MCP server or Enterpise APIs)= =C2=A0<i>for an AI audience/consumer experience -- </i>which I haven't = seen addressed in any WMF publications or community conversations. Without = a firm theory of "What kind of consumer is an AI search agent/RAG inde= x?" and "How does our content need to serve that AI audience?&quo= t; the editing community won't be able to adjust its editing practices = or weigh in on feature recommendations that make our content "AI usefu= l".<br><br>As I have written elsewhere, I think there is a inherent au= dience for editing/using the Wikis organically:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://en.= wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-06-21/Op-ed" target=3D= "_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-06= -21/Op-ed</a> -- but its a different question than competing "with oth= er information sources" for AI as an audience.<br><br><br><br><br></di= v><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On F= ri, Jul 10, 2026 at 2:30=E2=80=AFPM Steven Walling via Wikimedia-l <<a h= ref=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu= ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20= 4);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div c= lass=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 10, = 2026 at 9:52=E2=80=AFAM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l <<a href=3D"mailto:= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= dia.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"= margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef= t:1ex">On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 5:59=E2=80=AFPM James Heilman via Wikimedia-= l<br> <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">wi= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > Yah a search engine that actually gives real references that supports = the statements in question would be amazing.<br> <br> Almost like .. a Knowledge Engine. ;-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Is th= e WMF building an MCP server to connect Wikipedia and Wikidata directly to = Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT? This is a more lightweight, backdoor way to le= verage the audience of those platforms but present structured outputs to AI= chats for users based on Wikimedia knowledge.=C2=A0<span style=3D"backgrou= nd-color:transparent">If we did so, we could present citations within the r= eturned responses to users, and those platforms make it transparent to the = user when they are calling a particular tool.=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"ba= ckground-color:transparent">=C2=A0</span></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><= span style=3D"background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div class=3D"= gmail_quote"><span style=3D"background-color:transparent">Steven Walling=C2= =A0</span></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q= uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,2= 04);padding-left:1ex">Sadly, the only realistic path I see there would be t= hrough<br> acquisition, and even if that was financially feasible, you'd begin by<= br> inheriting a lot of corporate practices that aren't really consistent<b= r> with Wikimedia values.<br> <br> But perhaps there is a middle ground where Wikimedia seeks to define<br> more clearly the terms of engagement that it wants with search engines<br> (clear attribution, clear and correct references, calls-to-edit,<br> etc.), and then finds and recognizes search partners who implement<br> those. To Luis' point, that need not be done by WMF.<br> <br> Warmly,<br> <br> Erik<br> _______________________________________________<br> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>, guidelines at: <= a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines" rel=3D"= noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists= /Guidelines</a> and <a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim= edia-l</a><br> Public archives at <a href=3D"https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/w= [email protected]/message/HNDPDZBBDMILF7WGMUBVJVIAZYQ7OXOS/" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/= list/[email protected]/message/HNDPDZBBDMILF7WGMUBVJVIAZYQ7OX= OS/</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ikimedia.org" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org</a></= blockquote></div></div> _______________________________________________<br> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>, guidelines at: <= a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines" rel=3D"= noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists= /Guidelines</a> and <a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim= edia-l</a><br> Public archives at <a href=3D"https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/w= [email protected]/message/IUDAKJRN5EQT5CCWEEYQXKDSVXCDBXR6/" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/= list/[email protected]/message/IUDAKJRN5EQT5CCWEEYQXKDSVXCDBX= R6/</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ikimedia.org" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org</a></= blockquote></div></div> _______________________________________________<br> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>, guidelines at: <= a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines" rel=3D"= noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists= /Guidelines</a> and <a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim= edia-l</a><br> Public archives at <a href=3D"https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/w= [email protected]/message/YODBKTCLA2XJC24Y23I2SUN3PUYA4QXE/" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/= list/[email protected]/message/YODBKTCLA2XJC24Y23I2SUN3PUYA4Q= XE/</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ikimedia.org" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org</a></= blockquote></div></div> _______________________________________________<br> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>, guidelines at: <= a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines" rel=3D"= noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists= /Guidelines</a> and <a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim= edia-l</a><br> Public archives at <a href=3D"https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/w= [email protected]/message/5MPMZGZ2MXLLHER3NTNUS6KHIMAXIIBD/" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/= list/[email protected]/message/5MPMZGZ2MXLLHER3NTNUS6KHIMAXII= BD/</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ikimedia.org" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org</a></= blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= rg" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>, guidelines at: <= a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines" rel=3D"= noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists= /Guidelines</a> and <a href=3D"https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l"= rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim= edia-l</a><br> Public archives at <a href=3D"https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/w= [email protected]/message/QAGHRXXTGSXKVFOALBRQHP5G27NUIFDD/" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/= list/[email protected]/message/QAGHRXXTGSXKVFOALBRQHP5G27NUIF= DD/</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ikimedia.org" target=3D"_blank">wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org</a></= blockquote></div> --000000000000ea228f06564f9d39-- --===============7407182267144621790== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 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/6RKSJMWMVUHUUVV7WGKPOCOHCN4NBQK4/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org --===============7407182267144621790==--