Hoi, A charity, the World Cancer Research Fund, is all about the "relation of Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Cancer". When you look up the research they sponsored, you find many epidemiologists, when you then look up their Scholia you typically find an area of research that could use a lot of tender loving care.
They claim three areas of activity; research, influencing cancer professionals and influencing cancer patients. Plenty of papers are already known to Wikidata that prove the point that the occurrence and the outcome of cancer are dramatically influenced. So when I have the time, I work on scientists like Dr. Dieuwertje Kok. We used to have tools that would import all her works from ORCiD. We could revive them again. When we have a WikiFind, we could check out the content of a website like https://www.wkof.nl/ add their website and link to the Scholias of scientists, like claims to papers and by inference tell people to consider what they can in relation to the 40 often occuring cancers that can be prevented. This is just a suggestion that we could do this. People work on this kind of data. We should serve it as part of the knowledge that we have. Thanks, GerardM On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 17:59, James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: > Yah a search engine that actually gives real references that supports the > statements in question would be amazing. Google currently gives mostly fake > references (ie the references they provide often do not support the content > it is attached behind). > > J > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 7:20 AM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hoi. >> Given the lack of maintenance of many Wikipedia articles, eg the median >> time for a correction of a retracted reference is 3.68 years, the notion >> that our references will save us is unlikely. Given how big we are on >> references, we could expose them in our own search engine where we combine >> what we have, linked to subjects and enable people to add sources and work >> on our content.. >> >> This is not a Wikipedia centred idea and I expect that it will not be >> considered. But hey, what other ideas are out there that have a chance to >> expose people to our content? >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 03:26, Kimmo Virtanen via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> One note that hasn't been mentioned is that the future UI for consuming >>> information will be "agentic," where the tool used will search for and >>> collect the latest information on the topics. This means systems will >>> prioritize content where the information source is described (i.e., >>> references), as accuracy can be validated from there. So references are one >>> of the strengths of Wikimedia services compared to almost all other sites >>> on the internet. This doesn't really solve the eyeball problem since the >>> content is still used externally, but it should be good for something. >>> >>> Br, >>> -- Kimmo Virtanen, Zache >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 3:14 AM Steven Walling via Wikimedia-l < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> EU data provenance regulations do not require foundation model >>>> providers to link to the constituent sources of AI model knowledge. In fact >>>> the disclosure rules don’t even apply to foundation models themselves yet, >>>> only services. And they only require disclosing that text or other media >>>> were generated by AI (via the interface and metadata). It’s not going to >>>> help fix brand awareness and loss in referral traffic, only transparency >>>> that a particular piece of content is or is not AI generated. >>>> >>>> Google already links to Wikipedia when it is used as a source in search >>>> answers, and we’re still seeing a traffic decline. We shouldn’t wait to >>>> assume that EU regulations or walled gardens are going to save us from >>>> being disintermediated. >>>> >>>> The drop in enwiki traffic in particular is likely indicative of a >>>> structural shift considering that in just two years (2024-2026) we have >>>> gone from 33% of Americans using chatbots and AI summaries to 49% ( >>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-and-ai-2026-chatbots-smart-devices-and-views-on-impact/ >>>> ) >>>> >>>> Steven Walling >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 7:39 AM Ilario Valdelli via Wikimedia-l < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> James, thank you for grounding this with real numbers rather than >>>>> impressions — the Similarweb figure and the cross-language health content >>>>> analysis are exactly the kind of evidence this thread needs, and they're >>>>> worth taking as the starting point. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I don't think there's much left to gain from debating what >>>>> should have been done differently. What happened, happened — the past >>>>> doesn't come back, and no amount of hindsight changes the trajectory from >>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> What matters more now is the immediate ahead of us, and looking at it >>>>> with a different mindset: not only as a problem, but as something that >>>>> might open an opportunity — because very often what looks like a threat to >>>>> us is somebody else's opportunity, and figuring out which side of that >>>>> split we're on matters more than assigning blame for the past. >>>>> >>>>> A few things, connected, that point in that direction (even not a >>>>> complete picture). AI infrastructure spending is running above $1 trillion >>>>> globally this year, with investors increasingly nervous about the return >>>>> on >>>>> it. [1] At the same time, open-weight models that run locally — largely >>>>> out of China, but not only — are now within a few points of frontier >>>>> benchmarks at a fraction of the cost.[2] Regulation is starting to require >>>>> actual, checkable data provenance rather than declared compliance (EU AI >>>>> Act for instance). And large parts of the web are moving toward walling >>>>> off >>>>> AI crawlers and charging for metered access by default.[3] >>>>> >>>>> Put together, I think James's numbers might not just describe a >>>>> decline — they might be the leading edge of a market starting to separate >>>>> "content that's cheap to grab" from "content whose origin can be >>>>> verified," >>>>> and pricing them very differently. If that's right, it matters most >>>>> exactly >>>>> where James's data points: health content is where the cost of being wrong >>>>> is highest, and where verifiable sourcing should be worth the most, not >>>>> the >>>>> least. >>>>> >>>>> kind regards >>>>> >>>>> Ilario >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://about.bnef.com/insights/data-centers/ai-data-center-build-advances-at-full-speed-five-things-to-know/ >>>>> [2] >>>>> <https://about.bnef.com/insights/data-centers/ai-data-center-build-advances-at-full-speed-five-things-to-know/> >>>>> https://computingforgeeks.com/open-source-llm-comparison/ >>>>> [3 >>>>> <https://about.bnef.com/insights/data-centers/ai-data-center-build-advances-at-full-speed-five-things-to-know/> >>>>> https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/01/cloudflares-new-policy-pushes-ai-companies-to-pay-for-publishers-content/ >>>>> >>>>> <https://about.bnef.com/insights/data-centers/ai-data-center-build-advances-at-full-speed-five-things-to-know/> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 10:39 AM James Heilman via Wikimedia-l < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The question regarding what percent of our traffic comes from search? >>>>>> Similarweb says about 80%, so basically we could lose another 80% of our >>>>>> current traffic. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.similarweb.com/website/wikipedia.org/#traffic-sources >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the fall in traffic happening in just big languages? No it is >>>>>> happening in many languages of Wikipedia, at least for health content, >>>>>> There were some exceptions like Persian and Chinese that has seen a small >>>>>> degree of growth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/nethahussain/Pageviews-in-Medicine/blob/main/analysis/covid_analysis_output.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> J >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 10:18 AM Yaroslav Blanter via Wikimedia-l < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not think Google Zero will be (is) experienced by anyone except >>>>>>> for us as a problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, the current AI search is not perfect, but it will be much >>>>>>> better on a horizon of months. It is unfortunate that the end users take >>>>>>> the results uncritically rather than checking them clicking on the >>>>>>> source >>>>>>> links, but it is what it is. May be this culture would change, but this >>>>>>> timescale is way way longer than the time to improve the AI search >>>>>>> quality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except for obvious financial implications (which are very important >>>>>>> though) it looks like Wikipedia will be mainly the base for training >>>>>>> AI. It >>>>>>> is ok, in real life most people do not read encyclopaedias. It is >>>>>>> important >>>>>>> to be the training base as well, but we should also realize that if >>>>>>> this is >>>>>>> our role then some priorities must be shifted. For example, AI do not >>>>>>> care >>>>>>> whether the article looks nice or not, they do not care about usability. >>>>>>> They probably do not care about categories and many other things we >>>>>>> spent >>>>>>> years trying to make them perfect. They do care about content though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, there are clearly things AI can not do, which >>>>>>> were already mentioned here. They can not read offline material, and >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> of the paywall material. They can not produce pictures out of nothing - >>>>>>> which means Commons might have a very different role from what it has >>>>>>> now. >>>>>>> It might even become the flagship project (unlikely though with the >>>>>>> current >>>>>>> Commons community). But all these things require attention, and many of >>>>>>> them will be resisted by the community in the first place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Yaroslav >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 9:33 AM Anders Wennersten via Wikimedia-l < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree we ought to analyze better our situation, before we run to >>>>>>>> conclusions and discuss remedies >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Swwp has seen a decrease in traffic like others but in June we have >>>>>>>> seen an increase even if we include only accesses from mobiles (at >>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> for June) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/sv.wikipedia.org/reading/total-page-views/normal|bar|2-year|(agent)~user|monthly >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What we have seen more clearly though is that accesses of the most >>>>>>>> read articles per day in decreasing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have also more subjectively from media, and social media seen a >>>>>>>> growing skepticism toward AI-generated results and an increase in the >>>>>>>> trust >>>>>>>> of Wikipedia results >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our general conclusions this far are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *We are doing well in our core encyclopedic articles (like of >>>>>>>> administrative divisions within a country) , but less well in newslike >>>>>>>> articles (which the internet readers asks more frequently, but where >>>>>>>> newswebsites always been stronger). And we should concentrate our >>>>>>>> efforts >>>>>>>> where we are strong >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *We are in a late stage in our general product life cycle and must >>>>>>>> accept this. We will never have the increase in editors etc like we >>>>>>>> hade 15 >>>>>>>> yeas ago, but must do what we can do thrive in a this mode. For us - >>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>> angry internal argument, partially done by avoiding articles of >>>>>>>> infected >>>>>>>> subjects like Israel-Palestine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And for Google Zero. I believe it is them who has a problem not us. >>>>>>>> Early on, and still, all new PC user were forced into Microsoft Edge >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Bing which lead us to Firefox and Google. Google zero as I see will >>>>>>>> lead >>>>>>>> to an exodus från Google, there are many other search engines that >>>>>>>> works >>>>>>>> fine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia is great >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anders >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Den 2026-07-09 kl. 08:35, skrev Kimmo Virtanen via Wikimedia-l: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Secondly, I'd love to see initiative outside of enwiki. If you look >>>>>>>>> at all the ~1000 Wikimedia projects, almost all of them are seeing an >>>>>>>>> increase in traffic ; only a few big old wikipedias are seeing a >>>>>>>>> decrease >>>>>>>>> (which are also the ones with the most traffic, hence why it's more >>>>>>>>> visible >>>>>>>>> but it obfuscate at the big picture) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Based on stats total pageviews of human users of all wikis are >>>>>>>> dropping >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/total-page-views/normal|bar|all|(agent)~user|monthly >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Br, >>>>>>>> -- Kimmo Virtanen, Zache >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 9:13 AM Nicolas VIGNERON via Wikimedia-l < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi y'all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First could someone remind me how much traffic comes from Google >>>>>>>>> (I have a vague memory from last year that this is already very low - >>>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 % - and that LLMs are already bringing more traffic to >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia, >>>>>>>>> if true we essentially are at Google Zero already). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Secondly, I'd love to see initiative outside of enwiki. If you >>>>>>>>> look at all the ~1000 Wikimedia projects, almost all of them are >>>>>>>>> seeing an >>>>>>>>> increase in traffic ; only a few big old wikipedias are seeing a >>>>>>>>> decrease >>>>>>>>> (which are also the ones with the most traffic, hence why it's more >>>>>>>>> visible >>>>>>>>> but it obfuscate at the big picture). >>>>>>>>> I think we should start by looking at and learning from the >>>>>>>>> "successful" projects instead of focusing on the declining ones. For >>>>>>>>> instance, Wikisources always have been badly to not-at-all referenced >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> Google and yet there is a strong increase in pageviews recently. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Nicolas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le jeu. 9 juil. 2026 à 03:38, Michael Snow via Wikimedia-l < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 12:52 PM, Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > - Scale of impact is important, but it isn’t everything. >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes >>>>>>>>>> > we’ll have to build things without knowing if they’ll scale, or >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> > perhaps knowing that they won’t scale (eg Depths of Wikipedia >>>>>>>>>> is one >>>>>>>>>> > of the best community-builders we have even though it has >>>>>>>>>> “only” a few >>>>>>>>>> > million followers). “That’s good but it won’t scale to enwiki” >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> > never be allowed to be a blocker for anyone. If the experiment >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> > actually great, then we’ll figure out a way to get it onto >>>>>>>>>> enwiki. Or >>>>>>>>>> > not! That shouldn’t stop people. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At this point, no single initiative (whether community, chapter, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> WMF-led) will have an inherent capacity to scale to enwiki. To do >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> would require corporate-style resources with a corresponding >>>>>>>>>> top-down >>>>>>>>>> mandate for implementation, and risk (rightly) triggering >>>>>>>>>> resistance to >>>>>>>>>> the point of launching a true durable fork, for once. Instead, >>>>>>>>>> the best >>>>>>>>>> approach would be to find ideas that are good enough to >>>>>>>>>> propagate, >>>>>>>>>> encourage them, and when they have propagated enough, they will >>>>>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>>>> with relatively little intervention needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --Michael Snow >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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/6EQOFSG34E3BC6FIYL55HYBTQBAW4XFN/ >>>>>>>>>> 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/4WPCSTZNDMBDMYHWHV27BN2EZLGY5LXB/ >>>>>>>>> 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/W24PTVEX2A7YSR4YNHIUQTCGMAIMF2S3/ >>>>>>>> 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/XEKWEBKCXK2V4B3M2JSVFF4E53CWOKI3/ >>>>>>>> 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/6N356SKKS2KZEDCV2PFC4GSCERTB7D3E/ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> James Heilman >>>>>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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/WC6L3CIEKYWOXNR6FG343RJOX6YGTNRS/ >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ilario Valdelli >>>>> Skype: valdelli >>>>> Tel: +41764821371 >>>>> http://www.wikimedia.ch >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/HIZMAIRB76D2DSGKNC2IHQJQGGB56HPW/ >>>>> 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/3J6IX424Z27UWSX2PZUPA55OBQY5EU4P/ >>>> 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/GS2KQ7KDJ6X74TX62QR2RKTPGOYADCDS/ >>> 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/MD26FXYLFU5BLAEFVCNLSHUNLPWE6QZZ/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >
_______________________________________________ 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/RK3ULLNNURMMZHZVP5DUXOBVBDU57P2Y/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
