Hoi,
Dear Romaine, when I consider where we are and what we do, I am amazed
at how much we have evolved and how many positive things have improved our
Wikimedia world. From my perspective, there are issues that may be resolved
but for all kinds of reasons we are stuck in a state of stasis. The notion
that we have to look for one unifying solution for everything will prevent
us from evolving and will lead to decline. It is also very much not the
Wikipedia way. An article does not need to be perfect, there are others
that may improve whatever can be improved upon.
There is a process where deaths registered in Wikipedias find their way to
Wikidata. Making it possible to ping other Wikipedias with an article for
the same person about this event.. There is a Listeria list for 2026 deaths
in the Netherlands [1].. We could do a similar thing for awards, it would
show for a year the awards missing on your Wikipedia. We could even have
Listeria lists for awards instead of static local lists..[2] This will
particularly benefit the "other" Wikipedias. We could show generated lists
for awards not known on a Wikipedia..
We assume that because we have references that the "truth" of an article is
solid. That is a misconception because science evolves. So why not have all
publications with a DOI or another identifier on any Wikipedia registered
in Wikidata. There are public resources for publications citing the ones we
know, identifying the publications that are retracted. This provides our
editors with a useful tool and gives Wikidata another purpose.
The point is that there is much that we can do that provides
our communities with tooling enabling us to provide a better service. A
better service enables ourrelevance into the future. Much of these things
can be done on short notice. It prevents the endless often fruitless
discussions we are all too familiar with.
We used not to rely on perfection but strive for perfection through the
effectiveness of our communities. So imho forget about a grand overarching
idea, commitment. Provide us with the tools that enable our communities to
work smartly.
Thanks,
GerardM
PS Happy th
[1]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Deaths_in_the_Netherlands_in_2026
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/P._C._Hooft_Award
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 at 15:18, Romaine Wiki <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am sorry to say, but yes, it is cherry picking because it is very
> selective and many important factors involved are left out. But what
> concerns me a lot more is that in a movement where we try to focus on the
> facts and unbiased writing, so many hasty conclusions, shaky arguments, and
> skewed comparisons are presented as evidence. I was hoping that as movement
> we could avoid such a populistic writing, that we could stick to facts and
> not comparing apples with pears. That differentiates us from the chaos we
> see in many places in the world.
>
> I agree that it is time to act, but I also think we need to base ourselves
> on facts, that we need to make sure we make fair comparisons, that we keep
> our values in sight, and let us be aware where our strengths are. Wikipedia
> is one of the backbones of the internet and thousands of people rely on our
> platform every day, directly or indirectly.
>
> With the rise of AI we are facing challenges, and we certainly need to
> find ways to deal with them. But in drop in growth number of users/etc. is
> part of a common live cycle that platforms have. Endless growth is fiction
> (unless we want to use tricky algorithms that manipulate people; no thank
> you). A life cycle typically start slowly, then there is growth, then there
> is a peak (the hausse), followed by a decline, and then, then we need to
> make sure the situation becomes/stays stable. From that new stability a
> growth can be build up again. Please let us not forget, that every single
> day Wikipedia is still growing in knowledge. Wikipedia is a cumulative
> platform, each new addition is building on the previous additions. That
> gives is a lot more stability than platforms where it only counts what
> happens at that moment.
>
> With every large change in society, people are screaming that it is the
> end near for ... . When the radio was invented, people said that newspapers
> would become obsolete. When tv came a mass medium, people said the radio
> would become obsolete. When internet became massively used, people said tv
> would become obsolete. And now I read that because AI Wikipedia can become
> obsolete if we do not act.
>
> Organisations that in the past have tried to deal with different
> circumstances in their respective fields can help us learn what we may do
> and what we absolutely should not do. In general, organisations that loose
> their values and what they stand for, have an extremely high risk of
> becoming obsolete and getting extinct. While organisations that stuck to
> their principles, ideals and values survived turbulent times that have
> occurred many times in the past centuries.
>
> Of course we have to debate the situation we are in and I certainly think
> we need to work on improvements, but if we loose what we stand for, facts,
> a balanced review of information, unbiased writing, our neutrality, then we
> have already lost today.
>
> The data analysis in this essay is very week and problematic. If our
> starting point of a discussion is not based on facts and fair comparisons
> (also in essays), we face the enormous risk that we loose what we stand for
> and then failure is likely to become imminent.
>
> Romaine
>
>
> Op za 10 jan 2026 om 10:42 schreef Christophe Henner <
> [email protected]>:
>
>> Cherry picking? Both our stats and external stats are saying readership
>> is decreasing.
>>
>> If you still did not read it please let me paste it here: “According to
>> global data from Similarweb
>> <https://www.similarweb.com/?utm_medium=non_paid_partnership&utm_source=kepios&utm_campaign=brand_cross_2025-global-digital-reports_report_nov_24&utm_placement=article>,
>> as recently as March 2022, Wikipedia averaged more than 165 million visits
>> per day to its primary “.org” domain.
>>
>> Just three years later, in March 2025, Similarweb’s data shows that
>> Wikipedia’s traffic had fallen below 128 million average daily visits.
>>
>> Relatively speaking, these figures point to a decline of 23 percent in
>> total site traffic over the past three years.”
>>
>> https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-exploring-trends-in-wikipedia-traffic
>>
>> And if you read my essay you would know hat I too think it’s great access
>> to knowledge diversifies. But it’s a double edged sword, it also means less
>> people editing our projects.
>>
>> And my feeling is that we are not addressing the topic.
>>
>> Heck, I have to debate why steep decline, visible in our data and
>> external data, is a threat to our revenue model and to our editor
>> recruitment pipeline…
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 10:27 AM Anders Wennersten <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> When google shows our data directly it is not a decrease of readers, but
>>> of users accessing our interface, (the same with AIbots), and I perceive it
>>> as all OK,,it is use of our data that is important not our interface
>>>
>>> And look a bit closer of accesses last half year, and of different
>>> language versions, it is not a clearcut decrease.
>>>
>>> And I believe that your cherry picking of negative data is dangerous
>>> for us all, We should use the opportunity we have just now of all fake data
>>> among us to be prouder and more visible, and not be pessimistic and
>>> defensive
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 2026-01-10 kl. 09:31, skrev Christophe Henner:
>>>
>>> Anders please read my essay, readership numbers are in huge decline and
>>> it’s accelerating.
>>>
>>> Ironically, I agree with things you say here, but not for “no cause for
>>> alarm”. When readership is over two digits decrease while Reddit is growing
>>> and AI chats product are booming, it’s alarming.
>>>
>>> Top that with the fact that this is a trend that started almost 10 years
>>> ago and is accelerating is even worse.
>>>
>>> And perhaps you are right, every tu ing will be fine, but data is not
>>> pointing in that direction at all.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 9:24 AM Anders Wennersten <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As i stated in an earlier thread, i see our situation very different,
>>>> We are in this strange world we are in, a winner and important holder of
>>>> true fact amid all fake-news and censured channels.
>>>>
>>>> The donation grew by 12,5% 2024-2025 indicating the very strong support
>>>> we have amid internet readers, and at least in en wp we see a growth in new
>>>> users. Number of readers is about stable the last couple of years at the
>>>> same time we see Google, now show WP article directly bypassing WP
>>>> interface, and AI bot is more and more heavily relying on the content of
>>>> Wikipedia. I see nu cause for alarm at all, on the contrary
>>>>
>>>> Instead of being pessimistic as you indicate I suggest us being
>>>> optimistic and use our opportunity to be a more estabished leader in
>>>> giving true facts
>>>>
>>>> Anders
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Den 2026-01-10 kl. 00:40, skrev Christophe Henner:
>>>>
>>>> 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 [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/PG3HS572CTT3EBXYAO7IVE4W5UGXFUN7/
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/LM62OTCH2IBU32XJQU5SUEW7MLA2AU5R/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/WYLBGH7KHGHUJEICSTB33KVXNT4NAWOB/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/YX3EHTUUMFKMRGFVWYTBQH6RJU77F3IU/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/VMYJLSGYLZAXPZ35BYBLVO4AWHHAP4QF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
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/Q4HCCR5PWZIJMIDUGBDYMPAKQGRGNY7P/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
