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 [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/BS4GFOIFG6BTFBIY56ZKRECIX5A3YKHM/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
