It is a rare day that I don’t pay a visit to Wikipedia, and I imagine I’m not unusual in that respect. I turn to it when I read or hear something and want to know more about the subject, whether it’s a person, an event, a process, a concept, or a work of art. When I write and want to make sure I’m not misrepresenting something, I check to see what Wikipedia says about the matter. Once there, I don’t stick with one entry, because links to related information draw me in further and further. Teachers used to frown on Wikipedia (maybe they still do), preferring students to use “legitimate” sources of information, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, with entries written by experts in the field. It’s now clear that conventional encyclopedias aren’t a match for Wikipedia in accomplishing that first encyclopedist Diderot’s aim of amassing all human knowledge and making it available to everyone.

The advantages of Wikipedia are manifold. For one thing, information is constantly being added and modified, keeping it up to date, almost to the second. It is incredibly vast (the English version fills “over 64 million pages” according to Google AI), covering every imaginable topic. One of its most important attributes—and something detractors view as a major liability—is that it is created, curated and corrected by an enormous community of users. Because of this, it is less susceptible to bias, despite Elon Musk’s claims to the contrary, than when entries are compiled by a single individual or team of collaborating experts. Bias is diluted by the sheer mass of people with different perspectives that can contribute to an article. It is also absolutely free (only 2% of it’s users contribute to the project) because everyone who works on it does so as a volunteer, without compensation.

Critics complain that Wikipedia contains many errors and isn’t reliable. This is true, and it’s a very good thing, because it fosters an attitude of skepticism about the information we consume. By contrast, traditional, printed encyclopedias encouraged us to trust their content because the articles were written by experts. Expertise is indispensable (and, of course, Wikipedia’s community of contributors contains many experts), but experts can also make mistakes, and their contributions can be outdated or biased. To the extent that Wikipedia encourages us to adopt a critical attitude towards the information presented to us, it provides a valuable service. That being said, Wikipedia is generally believed to be as accurate and reliable as Britannica, although conventional wisdom persists in denying that. If you want to delve further into the question of Wikipedia’s reliability, I recommend the lengthy article on the subject in Wikipedia (of course) which contains this gem: The Daily Mail—itself banned as a source on Wikipedia in 2017 because of its perceived unreliability—has publicly stated that it “banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability”.

At a time when our democracy is on the verge of collapse, Wikipedia is a phenomenally successful democratic project (no wonder Elon hates it) fueled by a desire to share and expand knowledge, rather than by a desire to make money. In this it differentiates itself from other technological marvels like Google and YouTube, which exist not for the good of users, but to enrich investors. These money-fueled projects succumb to what Cory Doctorow calls enshittification, wherein people are lured into using a service or product that is then intentionally degraded by slowing it down, encumbering it with endless ads, or slapping a paywall on some of its features, all for the sake of maximizing profit. In Wikipedia we have not only an incredible engine for sharing knowledge, but an affirmation that a more decent and humanistic dynamic, not motivated by money, is possible. It is a model for utilizing technology to support rather than exploit users.

It feels to me that Wikipedia was created in the spirit of the old Whole Earth Catalog which aimed to empower people by helping them gain knowledge and skills without relying on institutions which we normally depend on for their acquisition. At this crucial time, most of the institutions and people in power we rely on to protect our security and freedom have failed us, and only the voice of the people and the integrity and bravery of a small number of individuals have kept us from lurching into a totalitarian hell. It is no wonder the oligarchs have come for Wikipedia, falsely claiming the information it provides is inaccurate and biased. The truth is that they want to control the information we have access to. Beyond the information which Wikipedia freely dispenses, it poses a threat to our would-be masters by being a system of, for, and by the people that operates successfully without interference from outside entities. If such an idea were applied to other aspects of society, what might become of our oligarchs?

Wikipedia could easily be monetized and bring billions of dollars to Jimmy Wales and potential investors, but he has heroically resisted the temptation. Some of that story is told in the enlightening rant by the manic Hank Green in the video below, which celebrates Wikipedia for being the miracle it is. That Wikipedia exists, and that people are willing to devote their time and energy to its creation and upkeep is in itself a cause for optimism and hope.

December, 2025