Down The Wikipedia Rabbit Hole

Hi, today we explore: The world's 7th most popular website: Wikipedia. TOGETHER WITH Today's Topics Hello and Happy Sunday! In today’s deep dive, we go down the Wiki rabbit hole… which — like 59 million other people, places, and things across 336 languages — has its own Wikipedia [page](. Join us as we untangle the internet’s biggest web of references. This Sunday edition comes to you in partnership with [1440]( which you may have heard of since you’re a fan of fact-based news. [1440]( is a free, impartial email briefing covering the headlines in 5 minutes a day — you’d be hard pressed to find a better (or quicker) way to stay in the loop.* [Read this on the web instead]( A site to behold In the words of Michael Scott: “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information”. And, in some ways, Scott isn’t wrong. Wikipedia’s open-access format has seen it become the 7th most [popular]( site in the world, with English language Wikipedia alone counting some ~6.7 million articles in its library. Wikipedia had humble beginnings. In 2001, on a day now known as [Wikipedia Day]( the site's first edit was posted: a homepage stating "This is the new WikiPedia!". Since then, it's been these edits, provided by a surprisingly small active user base, that have given life to the platform — arguably the largest collaborative knowledge project in human history. Check mates Indeed, despite Wikipedia’s hundreds of millions of users, just ~122,500 have edited pages in the [last month]( and, of these “Wikipedians”, a mere 881 admins wield the ultimate power to block, delete, and edit protected content. This means that startlingly few actually add anything to the site: if you make 1 edit, you rank in the top 30% of all Wikipedia users; if you make 10, you’re in the top 5%. But, if you’re serious about becoming a “super editor”, you have a long way to catch up. Wiki’s golden boy, Steven Pruitt — or, as he’s known on the site, [Ser Amantio di Nicolao]( — has made a mind-boggling 5.7 million edits, more than a typical month of edits on the entire site (last month saw ~4.7 million). Named one of TIME’s most influential people online in 2017, Pruitt’s impact on the site stretches over one-third of all English language articles, as well as contributing articles on influential women to help correct Wikipedia’s [gender imbalance]( — a project slightly more important than another [user]( who has single-handedly changed the term “comprised of” 47,000+ times. Citation needed The community of volunteer editors that Wikipedia’s vast pages rely on distinguishes it online — where else can you read about [tautological place names]( the [colors of noise]( or one 18th century soldier’s [insatiable appetite]( simply because someone possessed the time and interest to write it up? Even so, both Wikipedia’s beauty and unreliability stem from the fact that anyone can write anything — one example came in 2014, when Wiki banned IP addresses from the House of Representatives after several [anonymous changes]( were made on politicians’ entries by computers within Capitol Hill. In Wiki we trust? For the most part, however, the mechanics of the site might actually galvanize it against bias: popular articles are edited and reviewed countless times by Wiki’s volunteers, admins, and [bots]( to improve reliability. [Media experts]( have even argued that a highly edited article on Wikipedia may actually be among the most reliable sources of information — compared with traditional academic articles, for example, which are often only peer-reviewed by a handful of people. Interestingly, in a time of political polarization, both [American]( and [British]( people report trusting Wikipedia at least as much as mainstream media outlets. Wiki’s collectivism inspires some confidence, but the recent AI boom could threaten its open-access model. Many of the groundbreaking AI models released this year include Wikipedia citations in their training data. If Wiki's content ends up regurgitated by chatbots owned by big tech, the incentives for Wikipedia’s contribution system — mostly goodwill and personal interest — could collapse. Wiki-nomics Wikipedia could be a billion-dollar business almost overnight were it to offer advertising. But the decision to keep the site not-for-profit has arguably been its masterstroke, freeing the site from monetary conflicts... though keeping everything running is increasingly costly. In 2004, the WMF was racking up just $23,463 in annual expenses. Last year operating expenses reached nearly $146 million, ~60% of which was spent on salaries and wages, while various expenses — such as putting on conferences, handing out awards and grants to the growing Wiki-community, and hosting core websites — also cost millions each. As WMF operates on “whatever monies it receives from its annual fund drives”, this rise in spending has been matched with donations: last year saw cash contributions reach $160 million. Some will remember the [donation-appeal]( banner that used to head Wikipedia articles a few years back — [controversial]( even at the time, with Wikipedians arguing that the doomsday depiction of Wiki’s finances was misleading. [Sponsored by 1440]( News is broken You know it, we know it — and our friends at [1440]( knew it. So they created the [1440 Daily Digest]( a free news briefing, edited to be as unbiased as humanly possible. 2.9 million readers later, and it seems to have panned out: roughly 33% are affiliated with the left, 33% with the right, and 33% are independent. It’s facts without motives…in one clean, simple email. Culture, science, sports, politics and everything in between — their team scours 100+ news sources so you don't have to. They write for knowledge not clicks, with no paywall, ever. There’s a reason [1440]( is a firm favorite at Chartr: it’s news without the noise, letting readers connect the dots and draw their own conclusions. [Subscribe to 1440: Your daily briefing of impartial news, 100% free]( Hit search Often when we check something we’ve just heard about, we go straight to Wikipedia, so it follows that an estimated 83% of Wikipedia traffic is generated from [organic searches](. In this sense, the most viewed pages give a decent indication of public interest. Indeed, the deaths of notable figures, such as Elizabeth II in 2022, or global pop culture events, like the summer blockbuster Oppenheimer or Netflix hit Squid Game, nearly always correspond with huge spikes in page views. Facts of life However, as Wikipedia captures the zeitgeist, it also reflects public distress in the wake of global catastrophes. Wikipedia had been around for only 9 months when the [9/11]( attacks occurred — an event that highlighted the weaknesses of communication methods at the time. As cell phone networks faltered and radios failed, swathes flocked to the internet to understand the full impact of the tragedy. When a link to Wikipedia’s page on 9/11 cropped up on Yahoo News, traffic to the site spiked — in response, Wikipedia soon had over 100 pages related to the attacks. A jump in readers followed, marking the inception of the Wiki-hub we know today. The recent, devastating events in Israel and Palestine have also, by Wiki’s measures, captured the world’s attention: on [Tuesday]( 7 of the 10 most viewed pages on Wikipedia were related to the conflict. But, as we outlined when violence in the region escalated in [May 2021]( sensitive topics such as these — when misinformation can have serious implications — sharpen the focus on Wiki’s open-edit format and its admins. WikiNow As AI proliferates, expenses rise, and more people opt for quick [mobile phone]( queries over desktop Wiki-binges, the key to the site’s somewhat-uncertain [future]( is, in the words of founder Jimmy Wales, in its “lack of commercialization…and no sense that your labor is being farmed… it is a genuinely collaborative project”. So, Wikipedians keep on Wikipedia-ing: as one joke goes, Wikipedia works in practice… which is good, because it definitely doesn’t work in theory. [Sponsored by 1440]( There are 1440 minutes in every day And, sadly, many of us spend them reading partisan, opinionated, clickbaity news. But, [1440]( — a free email newsletter edited to be as unbiased as humanly possible — is a beacon of hope. The team at [1440]( scours over 100+ media sources ranging from culture and science to sports and politics to create one email that gets you caught up on the day’s events, taking just 5 minutes out of your valuable 1440. Join 2.9 million readers wired into impartial, reliable news — [subscribe to 1440 today](. Thanks for stopping by! [Read or share this story on the web]( *Sponsored content from 1440. See you tomorrow, when we return to our regular scheduled programming! Have some [feedback](mailto:daily@chartr.co?subject=Feedback&body=Hi%2C%0A%0AI%20like%20the%20newsletters%2C%20but%20I%20had%20a%20thought%20for%20you...) or want to [sponsor]( this newsletter? Not a subscriber? Sign up for free below. [Subscribe]( Copyright © 2023 CHARTR LIMITED, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: CHARTR LIMITED Kemp House 152 - 160 City RoadLondon, EC1V 2NX United Kingdom [Add us to your address book]( Don't want charts in your inbox anymore? Break our hearts and [unsubscribe](.