We Fixed It, You're Welcome - The Wikipedia Crisis: Surviving AI & Political Problems

Episode Date: November 4, 2025

Wikipedia is undergoing a full-on crisis. As AI search tools like ChatGPT and Google intercept its traffic, while also borrowing its resources, the platform is facing a slow-motion collapse. Donations are shrinking, editors are burning out, and global politics are threatening its open, volunteer-led structure. In this episode, Aaron, Melissa, and Qadira take on a big question: can Wikipedia survive in the AI era and during a time where facts are subjective? We explore how the site can evolve without losing its soul, what happens when truth itself becomes political, and why dissenting viewpoints actually make Wikipedia stronger. What We Cover: • Why AI is draining Wikipedia’s traffic and donations • The tension between openness, neutrality, and regulation • How political and cultural pressures are reshaping Wikipedia globally • Why its volunteer model is breaking — and how AI could help fix it • The role of diversity and localization across 300+ language editions • The future of knowledge in an AI-first world Key Fixes Discussed: • Partnership, not competition: Work with AI companies like OpenAI and Google to license verified content and ensure attribution. • Empower editors: Use AI assistance to reduce burnout and flag misinformation, while celebrating human contributors as the “Wikipedia Influencers.” • Global equity: Invest in non-English versions, local training, and community partnerships to balance global representation. • Governance & transparency: Build stronger frameworks to manage bias, misinformation, and evolving editorial standards. • Education & early adoption: Reintroduce Wikipedia into classrooms and universities to rebuild generational trust. • Stay the public library of the internet: Redefine relevance not by traffic, but by quality and cultural importance. Links Subscribe for more deep dives where we fix big business problems with fresh perspectives. • Website – www.wefixeditpod.com • Follow us on: Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/wefixeditpod LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wefixeditpod YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@WeFixedItPod If you liked this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your friends! Keep listening to find out how we fix companies and put them back better than we found them. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, Kedarah. Hey, Melissa. When we decided to talk about Wikipedia, I tried something. I asked Google's AI mode, what's happening with Wikipedia? Boom. I got an instant response detailing the exact situation. One of the top sources quoted, Wikipedia. And there was no need for me to visit Wikipedia to get what I was looking for. And that's exactly the problem. Anytime I ask a question to chat GPT or wonder something and say, hey, to my favorite voice assistant, the answer I get might be pulling from Wikipedia over and over and over. Times that by millions of people in Wikipedia is suddenly overwhelmed by non-human traffic, which they never signed up for. Throw some politics into the mix and Wikipedia may be about to fight for its very survival.

So what's going on here? Is Wikipedia.org still relevant? And if it needs to adapt to stay alive, can it happen in time before the whole thing implodes? That's what we're here to fix. It's a big one, but I believe in us. Tell us more, Kedera. So spot on, Erin, I was thinking about this myself, right? Is it just me? Or we go to Google or we ask chat GPT, you know, something about movie trivia or ancient history or a medical condition or sports stats. Or you're trying to settle a debate or you're trying to fill in a knowledge gap. Or maybe, like me, when you're watching a movie and you wonder, who's that actor married to in real life?

Or you're listening to a song and you wonder, what year did that singer die? right and Aaron exactly to your point you type the question in Google or another search engine or chat and most likely the information the answer that you receive is pulled in part from Wikipedia but the problem is we have to acknowledge Wikipedia has become a very trusted part of the internet but a very quiet part of the internet almost to the point where we forget it's there right we're not going directly to Wikipedia a lot of us to get our questions answered. And so behind the scenes of all of this, Wikipedia is in fact in trouble. And the stakes are bigger than what a lot of us might think. Now, I'm not talking about, you know, dramatic headline grabbing trouble at this point. But this is more of a slow structural unraveling that's raising some big uncomfortable questions, right? And Aaron, you posed a few of them. But, you know, just to kind of revisit, it's questions like, can Wikipedia's, really survive in this AI area where, again, other search engines, other platforms are pulling,

but not giving credit. Should it change? And if so, how much before it stops being Wikipedia? So if we rewind a little bit, right? Wikipedia launched back in 2001, long time ago. And it was kind of a radical idea. Anywhere could contribute to this global encyclopedia. There was no paywall.

There was no ads. just open knowledge curated by volunteers and it worked. It scaled fast. It became one of the most visited websites in the world and set a new standard for collaborative information on the internet. But now it's facing these waves of challenges that might fundamentally shape what it is or whether it even lasts. Traffic is down, way down.

AI, like I said, AI tools like chat GPT, Google search summaries, like I said, they're pulling answers straight from Wikipedia without credit, but also without sending users back to the site. That's huge, right? Because fewer clicks means fewer donations, fewer donations, fewer donations, fewer contributors, fewer contributors, less visibility. And at the same time, you've got regulators, for example, in other countries like the UK and India. They're hitting Wikipedia with legal demands, some that could force anonymous volunteers to rebuild their identities or limit what kind of information can be published. That's a huge shift for a platform

that was built on openness and global reach, right? And to that, many of the people who built Wikipedia's success, so you think about the editors, the translators, the fact checkers, they're burning out. Younger generations aren't joining in the same way. The mobile experience still feels stuck in 2010. And then Wikipedia has also long struggled with a devourner. issue. So most editors are still male. They're still based in the West, and they represent a narrow slice of perspectives. Then you've got misinformation and AI generated content that are starting to creep in. So that's making it harder to trust. What are we reading? Or to even know who wrote it? Where did it come from? All of this puts the Wikipedia Foundation, which is the nonprofit that runs

Wikipedia in a really, really tough spot. Right? So questions like, do they double down on openness and neutrality, even as the world becomes more litigious and polarized? Do they start licensing content to AI companies to protect their own sustainability? Should they invest in redesigns and regranting and mobile first formats? Or is that selling out, right? The old school internet ethos. I don't know. So that's what we want to unpack in today's episode.

It's a lot, but I think we're up for the challenge, right? We have to ask ourselves a couple questions. strategically, what moves could or should Wikipedia make to stay relevant without compromising its mission? From a brand and audience lens, how do you keep Gen Z and beyond engage in a platform that was built for a desktop world? And then operationally, is this volunteer-based model still sustainable in the age of automation and misinformation and global legal pressure? So Aaron, Melissa, there's a lot there, but we're fearless fixers. We can do this.

Let's talk about it. Where do we start? Melissa, should we talk about us? Let's start with the operations part. You know, can we sustain not a volunteer nonprofit enterprise on the web? That is this for many, not all, but many is this source of truth and now this data mine resource. Can we keep it going with just a volunteer mentality? Is that viable right now?

I think there's a lot of components to this. And Kadira, thank you for sharing. Yeah, that was excellent, Kadira. And that was an excellent summary. And that was like a Wikipedia summary there. I think to take a step back there, Aaron, before we get into diving into how to look at the operations, I really start looking at the customer base, the audience, right? So I think that Kadira, you hit on it. One of the things that I was actually thinking about as I was prepping for this call was,

is it even worth fighting for in this new age, right? And as I was like looking at it, I was really kind of, you know, looking at where do we go for our information? Kadira, you mentioned that. And right now, it's over 80% of all searches start with Google. That's just business operational topic, right? And so when you think about that, they're the undisputed king. They have over 90% of global search market share, over 8.5 billion searches per day. It's consistently the number one visited site.

ChatGBTGBT is this new disruptive newcomer. It's at its peak. It's hitting about 1.5 billion visits per month. And that was a while ago. So I'm sure that actually it's way higher than that now. It's 2023. So can you imagine right now at 2025? what it is. But it's still your query tool. You browse it. It's not really the website that you're

looking for when you go to Google. And then Wikipedia is this established institution. It consistently ranks in the top 10 most visited websites globally. So that's really great, four to five billion total monthly visits. But it's been declining. And so that kind of led me to that idea of like, is it really worth fighting for? But I think. think that even though Wikipedia's audience is declining and shrinking, it's still enormous, right? So it is worth fighting for. And I think it's because of the type of customers, Aaron, the type of people that actually go to Wikipedia. So you have what you would call with Wikipedia more of a, it's knowledge-seeking mission. Like I go there when I'm like, it's actually kind of

funny when I Google something first and if I don't necessarily believe it or trust it, I go to Wikipedia. Now it's weird to me because when I kind of was doing this prep, one of the things they said is that typically people going to Wikipedia are on a knowledge seeking mission. You're not looking for the quick fact. You know that Wikipedia is going to be like forever, right? And so you're there to read it, really kind of figure out who, who, you know, look at the footnotes, who actually inspired this comment or this paragraph, right, that they have all of it footnoted. And so it's a lot different than just putting in to chat GPT's a question or even into Google. So that to me is why it's worth fighting for.

It's an audience that's built a foundational understanding of what it is and what it's about. These are for students, researchers, curious minds, professionals, doing the deep work, right? So losing them isn't just about a traffic loss, you know, about the amount of traffic going into their website, but it's a loss of informed public. Now, operationally, though, how do you stay relevant in today's world? I think that we do have to think, again, about the customers. And so, you know, embracing maybe this Gen Z culture or culture. and format mismatch with what yeah, right?

Because they consume things. Like I talked about my children. They don't like this a lot on this podcast. And they're in that generation where texting is everything. X is everything. So I always tease them. I'm like, if it's not in 30 characters, then they're not gonna answer me, right?

They're not that. And so really that's the kind of, you know, TikTok talkification of knowledge. You know, we have to understand. We have to be careful of that. But maybe instead of the wall of text that Wikipedia gives us, it's giving us the thing that I used to love at work, getting a TLDR summary at the top, right? I was one of those people that I did have certain leaders that reported to me, sorry about this, Benjamin, that would write me three pages in an email. right a summary and so I told him I said look I am the preview pain queen of outlook so if it doesn't

then the preview pain I'm not reading it and he and started to understand I wasn't serious about this and he would put all the call to actions either in the summary or you need to read paragraph six because this is important to your decision right great thank you um and so what about doing something like that that is marked, it's community verified, you know, integrating maybe short videos, explaining from trusted educational creators, linking to an article, right, you know, so kind of trying to take that, you know, I need to have that information in a flash versus, and I want to have it all there, right, validated, but helping, you know, to gain users who might not look at Wikipedia as that first stop.

Unless I, you're saying, I agree with it. And I would argue we have that. We have that. Give me the snapshot summary. It's called chat GPT, right? So give me, tell me I need to know, a pull from Wikipedia.

If it's not in Wikipedia, give me other sources. Give me videos of rich media content. And give me the expression. Well, that's too long. Give me the one sentence version. That's too long. Give me the one word.

You know what I mean? Like we can tailor the knowledge to our needs. We don't necessarily need to read a long, you know, AP formatted, curated page from top to bottom to digest information. So I just wonder, like, you're talking about the viability. It should still be around. Is it should around as an interface? Or is just one of those things that it's like, you know, if it went away and became a behind-the-scenes resource and they could figure out the way to keep it, We'll call it monetized, even though it's a nonprofit, but keep it afloat.

Is it one of those things that we're just kind of nostalgic for? Because it's from the early days of the web, just like Craigslist has been around since 1995. And now we have offer up. And that hit with Gen Z and millennials and Craigslist still there, still old school text interface type of thing. So, you know, would we cry if Wikipedia.org was no longer a go-to resource and it just powered the, tools that we use now. I would cry. Yeah.

Because again, I love Wikipedia. You heard me talk about like, I will go down a rabbit hole. But I do think this is about evolution. And I'll get to that in a second. But I love question of like, should it still be around? Is it still relevant, right? I think the answer is yes. And whenever I'm thinking about relevancy or should we continue to do this or

should, you know, a company or a brand continue, I think the question is like, what sets it apart? Well, that's one of the questions. And so, yeah, I do think, you know, with Wikipedia, you know, again, that their sweet spot was all about like open knowledge and open information in this collaboration. And that's not necessarily the case with the short and chat, GPT, like it's my friend, chat or, you know, Google, right? And so I think, you know, yes, again, it's run by this nonprofit.

And it was really about people being able to build something together. And we've talked about this on other episodes. with other different topics, but I think especially now, people are hungry for this sense of togetherness and community, even spanning across the globe. But again, it's about how can that brand, that company, that platform, that business, whatever it may be, evolve so that the culture actually resonates today. So I would advocate and I would definitely say that it is still relevant. It still makes sense. There is still a need because it's a very unique platform. this, again, this encyclopedia, and there are other platforms out there that we might be searching

information for, but it is not Wikipedia in the sense of this community and collaboration. Yeah, I think you bring up a really good point, too. I love what you said about partnership and collaboration and things like that. And maybe it's time for Wikipedia to take a different strategy in terms of AI and chatGBT and Google and what you would maybe call their competitors of information is maybe they need to stop thinking of themselves of like a destination and start embracing its role as kind of that infrastructure for trusted knowledge because that's what we're talking about right because of the validation component of it we've always liked that they've had these editors in the background

ensuring that things were as correct as possible and also like footnoting to their sources, right? Like, that's the problem I have with a lot of these other things is that there's, you're not sure, like, who they're talking about. And then you, you can, them and they can give you a slew of ideas, but it's like kind of not really connected to maybe the question that you really wanted answered. So maybe they need a reposition themselves as kind of the trust layer of the internet or some, you know, market themselves to something like that. And instead of fighting AI, they license their data. Okay. and vetted citations and all the work that they've done to AI companies as a premium verified source, right?

So then when you think of it, it's kind of like they have the inside track of Intel, right? They're kind of like, you know, because you know who Wikipedia is and their brand. So, Kadeer, if you talk to your friend chat and they pull something, gives you an answer, it would cite Wikipedia verified fact. and then also maybe even have like a cute little icon or a link so that you could click into it if you wanted to do the thing that you do, which is go down that rabbit hole and see more about it. Or do you feel really good about that as a foundation and that you're like, okay, I can trust that this paragraph that was provided to me by my friend chat is actually,

it's as close to relevant as possible to what I was looking for, right? And this would also maybe create a new revenue stream. I don't know, Eric, really, if that was something that they could. But I think it's about looking about how do you collaborate with the future versus be left behind? And maybe that's what I, what I hear more about like whether we should have Wikipedia. Of course, we should have Wikipedia. But my fear is that no one is going to be using it because it's, it's too or anything like that. Yeah. Well, Melissa, I do wonder, you know, I think part of the appeal of being a Wikipedia contributor or editor is the, you know, you're maybe publicly recognized by name, but there's like, there's like a swagger to it in the community of, you know, I'm a contributor. I've done this many articles or I've, you know, this is my, my footprint on the page. If Wikipedia became more of that behind the scenes, extracting, you know, data extraction tool, would there still?

be, can you, I go back to my original question, can you run a volunteer-based initiative on a behind-scenes resource where you lose the public visibility and you don't, you know, have any type of claim or platform to, you know, that has been behind it, external recognition for what you're doing to support the cause. Does that, does away the, the pull to bring in a volunteer-led workforce? Well, that might be something for Kadira to talk. Yeah, Kadira, I, I, I, I I do think that it is important to understand the depth of motivation for being a participant and being an editor. That is definitely something there. And don't get me wrong, I think all of us want to be appreciated.

We all want, you know, our flowers at some point. But maybe there's a different way that they can do that. You know, they can publish, you know, our featured editors in each, right? know, and with a little bio, maybe a link, and maybe in a link to a personal article or to a podcast or to whatever you want, right? But is there a way to recognize them without like changing that aspect of it while also partnering and kind of transforming and evolving towards the future? I do see what your point is because, yes, of course I think it's kind of a sticky and very cool thing to be to say a Wikipedia. I mean, that makes you sound

extremely smart because you must be, right? To say you're a Wikipedia contributor. But at the same time, I would for that to be one of the things that's holding them back from potentially really transforming what kind of platform they can be for the greater good of general public information that is out there because there's so much information that is out there like we were just talking you know there's all these other media platforms and how do you validate all that information and Wikipedia is a trusted source so that's one of the things that is really something that we don't want to give up right well and I think that's part of the complexity too is we live in such a charged time where you know facts are up for dispute facts and history is subject

Can we have a single source of truth with verified sources wherever they come from and have it universally accepted? And the answer right now is no. Like you see the political pushback and we don't have to get too deep into the politics, but you see all the detractors saying Wikipedia is doesn't stand for what I stand for or where's my voice on there. So, you know, can it be universally representative? Right now it's not for whatever reason. It's having a moment. of really critical analysis. Yeah. And I think, too, it's important, like, you know, just going back to, again, I don't know any brand, company, platform, whatever, that hasn't evolved and hasn't looked around at what's happening in the rest of the world, again, whether it's politically, whether it's

identity, socially, health-wise. I mean, we've lived through a pandemic, hopefully a once-in, you know, a lifetime type of thing. But, you know, we have to look at what evolution means. in this case, I think all really good points that both Erin and Melissa you've made, I think with their evolution, you know, there is a greater responsibility now to be transparent about editorial decisions and acknowledging where that bias might exist. I think that, you know, there is an opportunity. And when you think about balancing it being volunteer led or volunteer driven with the Wikipedia Foundation that kind of runs the scenes like, you know, financials and

legal and all that stuff, like, is there an opportunity to have some sort of governance in place or stronger governance in place? I'm going to use the word framework, again, where we kind of talk about what's in, what's out, you know, for the volunteers that might be editors or fact checkers. So, you know, as they think about evolving, as they think about, you know, continuing to be volunteer-led, absolutely. I think there's opportunity for that. But I think that, you know, when they look at, again, what is happening in the world and what's happening in each of the countries where, you know, Wikipedia is translated and has a present. They have to think about how are they designing it so that the culture of Wikipedia, that

original culture and brand of Wikipedia can still exist, but how does it resonate, one, with what is happening today? But then also what does that look like within the countries that it's serving? And that also means then touching the volunteer. the editors, the fact checkers who are also within those regions. Because that's going to look different, right? What makes sense? What recognition, what leadership, all those things looks like in the U.S. is going to look different in India. It's going to look different in the U.K. It's going to look different in, you know, Ghana. And so I think that, you know, they're not the first company, obviously,

to have a, but it's something they have to be really, really, really, and customize, be really focused on how they're going to do that in each place that they're. I totally agree. And I, I, I, I think part of what's key to Wikipedia's survival is the buy-in and the participation and the community involvement, because it becomes a wasteland where things just age out and updated. Like, we need dissenting opinions on there. They did a study. There was an interview with the co-founder Jimmy Wales, a video interview that recently, and they touched on a study that came out. It was 2019, but it was published in the journal Nature, and it was called The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds. And it said that it might be counterintuitive,

but said that politically contentious Wikipedia pages end up being of higher quality. So they're more evidence-based and when having more consensus around them. So by localizing, bringing it to the other countries that's involved with and having the, I guess, the boots on the ground perspective, even if it's really far apart, the sides that contribute are far apart, when you have enough participation, it winds up be. being a highly source. And you reach some, I guess, consensus or some factual understanding.

But if the if it goes away, state side or otherwise, you know, it's just the pieces start to fall apart. And we're at the precipice of that. I don't think we're seeing it yet. But it could happen. Like we could see a headline by this comes out or shortly after saying, you know, Wikipedia is in trouble or the donation at the top of the page starts to come, become three fourths of the page. you know, the plebe. So I don't know. It's right now. And I think, yeah, the decentralized model, too, is Wikipedia's superpower. So we're talking about that, right? And all of the editors,

all of the countries, all of the inputs that are coming in, but it's also its biggest vulnerability in the age of AI and content. It's just getting flooded with, you know, moderate AI information. It's, it really needs to go through. kind of an operational evolution, not a revolution, but evolution, right? And if they don't partner with these AI tools and understand that, they're going to have burnout of their editors, right? Because think about what the link curve must be for a new editor. It must be pretty steep, right?

You're trying to edit a page with all this complex stuff in there, navigating what the norms are, the framework, if they even have a framework. must be very daunting. Then when combined you with just the amount of low quality AI generated submissions that are probably coming in all the time, they have sift through this as a volunteer, that is really doesn't feel like they're being used as a valuable asset that they were when they first started, right? You know, Aaron, when they're when you're talking about how do we make our editors feel important,

it's, it's dedicating that humanness that they add to it. and also to, you know, the pride they're bringing into the information that is getting posted. So is there a way for them to deploy some sort of AI tools and use that not just for the end users, but for the editors, right? So create AI assistance that can flag potential vandalism or, you know, can flag that these in real time help them. format, you know, the great thing about AI is you give them the framework and you give them the playbook and playbook. All footnotes need to have this and they have to be validated in this way. Like, let them, let do that for them. But so that they can really be working on a high level

of curating those complex kind of interesting, I don't want to say there are disputes because Aaron, that's not what they are, but interesting commentary that's coming into Wikipedia that needs to be added. And those are the things that are driving what why people ourselves, the curious people of the world, go into Wikipedia, right? But I think that, again, I think there's going to have to be some sort of partnership because I think that what you're going to end up doing is you're going to get so, you're going to have the tsunami of information and you're not going to be able to allow your editors to do the real work. Yeah. I love that, Melissa. I think, I don't know, I've read somewhere that, you know, Wikipedia, I think is, there's over 300 language editions of

Wikipedia, right? So just going back to like the editors and, you know, the fact checkers and all those things. But guess, you know, which language dominates? It's English. And so, you know, how do we help other versions grow, you know, when there definitely is this uneven landscape? where some of these communities have this rich access to knowledge, and then others may have like a fraction of that. So I love, you know, what you just pointed out because I think there is absolutely this knowledge gap that we have to close. And I think, you know, that's something that I probably would charge the Wikipedia. And with especially is investing in that local capacity, exactly to your point. You know, is it AI tools? Is it, you know, how do you support

those editors in their own language with training, with funding? You know, I, you know, I, you know, I love you mentioned partnerships because I think it is so critical to develop your programming, your path forward, whatever, with the people in that particular community. And that is not going to happen coming from the outside. You're going to have to do that with groups, organizations, you know, communities, residents in that particular region or country. So, you know, and I think the other thing is it means that, you know, the Wikipedia can't always assume that, you know, English Wikipedia or Wikipedia.

in, you know, the U.S. or state side is the blueprint. And that sometimes can be tough, right? When, you know, for a lot of people, right? But like, we, I think we also have to think about, like, knowledge is not this one size fits all. And I always go back to, like, what is notable in one place is not going to be notable in the other. What's essential in one place isn't going to be essential in the other. And so I think the way that I would think about this if I were on that Wikipedia, foundation team is like this is an opportunity. This is an opportunity to think about where does global equity and digital access really intersect. And again, I think, you know, between some of the suggestions that I just made, but Melissa,

what you pointed out, like we're starting to chip away at, again, looking at this as an opportunity versus a roadblock. Right. And I do think that like, you know, I'm actually talking about this a little bit later on a different panel, but agenic AI is really a thing. And I think that the important component for Wikipedia is to partner with the current human editors, right? Ensuring that you understand what they actually need and where they might need help versus like just saying, okay, we're going to add an AI partner. Because I think that there's so many things that all of us in the workforce do,

that I would consider somewhat busy work. Tidious kind of things like that. And that's the thing that you could have an AI agent help you with, right? Or a virtual editor or a virtual, you wouldn't call them an editor. Call them an assistant, right? But then you have the real editor going in there or translator. I have a great example of that. I had some documents, and I used to be in the insurance world,

so very, very complex documents sent out to, a translation service. And I, whatever, you know, they sent him back to us. And it was hilarious because my trainer, this was a wonderful thing, a native Spanish speaker, and he looked at the Spanish documents and he totally was laughing because they used, like, I think we were asking, it was something about, it was actually HR stuff. We were, we were talking about comp time, makeup time. Like if you had to miss two hours to take, go to a doctor's appointment, could you make up time in the, you know, later of the day, right?

They use the verb for makeup as in like makeup. Foundation. Right. Cover up. And so the guy was like, so you have time to like put makeup on your face, you know? And he was like, you almost just published that in the employee handbook. And I was like, oh my gosh. you know and so that's the kind of thing where you still are always going to need a human assist

a human touch to really kind of look at the nuances of what you're trying to create it's content creation it is very important but do we need editors and maybe you want human editors I don't know and there are people that but this is a volunteer job you know I don't know who has that time but like who are scoping through all to figure out what's fraud and what's not fraud right and if There are some signals of fraud, you know, based on where the information is coming from, based on the amount of submissions. Maybe it's like they're getting flooded hundreds of submissions every five minutes on this particular topic.

You could, you might be like, okay, we need to block that and we need to investigate, right? But again, I do feel like there's such an opportunity for Wikipedia because they have been for so long that verified data backbone for all of us. that you don't want to lose that, but they do have to figure out how to make it work in the future. Because I think that I feel like it's against it for them. If they don't do it, all these AI companies are going to kill them with information. They can't update quick enough, right? You know what I mean?

Absolutely. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. And do you keep going? If that's the case, like we're not slowing down on our. consumption of AI. So and chatbots and voice assistance and all that's just going to keep escalating. We're going to find new reasons and new technologies and new capabilities for them. So can Wikipedia

find it some peace in being the backbone, the go-toe resource for those other entities? Like, that's just going to happen if they, you know, they can still keep up the dot org and still get whatever dwindling, diminishing traffic over time there will be. But that's where we're ahead. unless something changes. And from a brand standpoint, you can say, okay, well, be more visible as a brand. And I started putting together some thoughts on that. And then I looked and they've done it. Like they've, they've, they've, they've sell merch and they've done, they did a collaboration

with little Wayne and they did like a fashion thing and it look, it's cool stuff. So you can, you know, if you want to step up your brand footprint and make sure people take it as an extent, you know, build it into their identity and I'm a Wikipedia person, you can do that. Maybe they could do a better job of it and put it into stores or something, but I don't know. Like, you have to be a certain type of mentality to wear Wikipedia, you know, a shirt out and around, especially in this climate when some people don't believe in Wikipedia. So is it a brand play? I don't think so. It's just really, are they comfortable being a utility? Or is that dot org? I just have to keep coming back to is that.org still viable as a stand?

and a loan resource. I don't know. Yeah, I would, you know, I, again, I think when we think about what the platform or this global encyclopedia needs to look like, you know, a year or five years from now, and hopefully they're working on their five-year roadmap and have some good strategies in place. But, you know, I think I'll go back to Melissa's point and you were talking about with the other or AI platforms or if they look at them as competitors, figure out a way to start partnering with them. I would just double down on what you said, right? And there's been other brands that have been like,

wait a minute, if we don't start figure out how to partner with what potentially could be our competition, they're going to start eating our lunch. And so I think that's similar. You know, I would completely echo that. I think they don't have to completely go away. And I hope that they don't. But I do think, you know, partnering with,

chat, for example, or, you know, I had mentioned kind of in the intro figuring out how to license some of the content, if that's an opportunity. Like, they're going to need to look at opportunities like that versus just saying, you know, in the next five years, we're going to still be the standalone because I don't think that will be the case. You know, I just before we talk about what the fixes might be, I saw this analogy about Wikipedia. I thought this was very interesting because I think it, I think it,

kind of tells the story more creatively. So the analogy is Google is the coffee shop. Everyone goes there to start their day. We meet there, get a quick coffee, shy, latte, whatever you get, right? It's loud, it's busy. It's full of ads. Google. ChatGBTGBT is your super hyper-efficient, all-knowing personal assistant.

give it a task and it gives you an answer, the answer you want, right? Because depending on your prompt, right? It's fast as convenient. You don't always know where it gets its information, but you feel confident because it's your friend, right? Kadira, Chad. And so you go with it. Wikipedia, and I thought this was very interesting because it may not reach to some of our audience, is the public library. It's not flashy. Fewer people spend their time there than they used to, but it's a civic good, right? It's information, it's meticulously curated, it's free from commercial pressure,

and you can trace every fact back to its source. And I love those kind of comparisons, because like that is in everybody's life, kind of that kind of thing. So really, I do believe the Wikipedia is worth fighting for, not because of the volume of traffic going to the library, because it's not very much. it's worth fighting for because of the quality and the critical role it plays in today's world

and especially in the noise of the media today, I think, and not just media, but like all information sources. So I, you know, it's just a question of whether or not we know how to fix that. Yeah. I think that's great. That was a great analogy. And look, they all have a place. They all have a role. Right. Right. Right. So. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And if you, you know, the New York City Public Library, the big stately building, if you put on art exhibitions there and you have author signings and you come up with reasons to come back and visit our building, it's an analogy for Wikipedia, but you give reasons to make it a destination. People might do that if you decentralize it and scatter the resources everywhere and, you know, you pick up a book and say, where did you get that book? this is exactly what I'm looking for.

It doesn't matter where I got it, you know. Then that's another, another application where the facts or the articles or the content still getting out there, it's just what do you need the building for? So I don't know. Let's go. Let's fix it. We say that Wikipedia should exist. We were saying take care of the people that are volunteering their time and propping it up.

Maybe give them AI, we're in the age of AI, maybe give them the AI tools they need to make their job more efficient or catch some of the verification things that there's a human fallacy behind. We're saying pay attention to the localization and the 300 plus languages that Wikipedia has an impact or footprint in. And we're saying maybe license the technology or the content to these AI, all you can eat buffet, hungry bots that come in and say thank you. and maybe there's some kind of sustainable revenue play there.

Again, not for a nonprofit, but keep it afloat, keep it thriving. If the people that are the entities or institutions that are taking the biggest bites also become contributors monetarily. So if we put those into play, our, Kadira, I'll come back to you. It's your topic. But Melissa, did we fix it? I think so. I think one of the most important things that we fixed was just bringing to light how important

Wikipedia is fundamentally and foundationally. I think one of the things that Aaron you brought up, which I really want to hit on to, besides the partnerships, I think partnerships is really important and evolving with AI and having that be your partner, but is the promotion and protection of the voluntary editors. I think that is really important. I think that they are now, that you, you know, and to use the modern term, they're content content creators, their influencers, Wikipedia influencers. You get a T-shirt. You get to put it on your LinkedIn. I don't care what you, you know, whatever, but like they go through that vetting process. They've gone through the training. They have their own AI assistant to help them vet through fraud, fraudulent

submissions. And they're still the last touch. They're still signing off. They're redlining things, right? And I think that's really important. I don't want Wikipedia to use AI to dumb down their content, which I think that sometimes you see with chat, you kind of see a very generic watered down version of something you're looking for unless you prompt it to give you like very specific something, something, something. So that's one of the things. So I really, you know, I feel like it's an institution deserving of our attention and our protection. But I think the thing that's the driving force is the community that puts it all together. The global community, as Kadira has mentioned as well, the diversity of voices that are heard.

The diversity of languages and cultures that are represented really help to make Wikipedia what it is. Thanks, Melissa. What do you say, Kadira? Yeah, I love that. Okay. So I'm going to try and keep us on on the peas. So Melissa just said we talked about the promotion and the protection. I think Wikipedia should start or somewhere quickly start asking who do we want to.

So what's our purpose in the next five, 10, 20 years? Who do we want to be? Do we want to stay the same? What do we want to do? How do we want to evolve? Purpose. Absolutely, I would double down on partnerships, whether it is with as we've talked. about the AI platforms, but definitely local communities. They should not be building, designing

anything, whether it is editor tools, going into any community thinking about content, governance, et cetera, without that local community. So partnerships on both sides. And then I would say playbook, of course, right? So this I think is where the Wikipedia Foundation, which, you know, can provide that governance. And again, you're going to to customize it based on the region. You're going to customize it based on the country and that is going to be informed by those local partnerships, but there should still be this governance based on what you're saying, you know, who do we want to be in the next five years that will start to answer some of those questions globally, universally of what do we stand for? What do we believe in?

What does, you know, editorial decisions look like? What's in, what's out? How are we going to approach this. So I think if we go there, I think we've got a really solid fix. I'm going to throw something at you both. What if we go the other way? And Wikipedia, you know, instead of we can be good neighbors and partners and citizens and say, look, work with everybody that has been coming along and making our knowledge. What if we go the other way and say, now this is ours, whatever's on Wikipedia belongs to us and you can't have it. And maybe they're a little late to the party, but they come up with their own chat bot and it's, you know, wiki chat and they get fun,

they get backing and support and they say, no, this, you know, anything that you can't, you're cut off today. Don't you think there might be a panic, right?

Like all the AI tools that are been using Wikipedia as the foundation, they might go into a little bit of a tailspin and say, wait a minute, let's play a ball here. And that could bring everybody to the table, at least bring a lot more attention back to Wikipedia and make it viable again. So, So, you know, I'm playing with that idea is, yes, we can wait everybody out and say, we'll play by your rules or we could say, look, we have people to take care of.

We do things a certain way. Now it's locked down. It's ours. I think I'd be interested to see how that might play out. Yeah, it's possible. I mean, look, but using, you know, Melissa's analogy, right, they could lock the content down. But, you know, if you're the trusted public library, can you compete with the coffee? shopper, the personal assistant, versus, you know, thinking about what your new, unique, you know,

value prop is in that particular space. But I actually like the idea, Aaron, but, you know, I definitely think there's going to be a little bit of panic, but also just kind of scratching the head. And again, when we think about, like, where are we headed from here? Do we need another one of those? No, I don't think we do, Kadira, but I think it may be short-term negotiation tactic. Yep. bring eyes back to Wikipedia, have people say, oh, I forgot about you. Yeah. You know, yes, you're incredibly relevant.

What do we have to do here? Yeah. Let's create a spectacle. That's my thought. I like the spectacle. I think it's a little bit like Pandora's box. Like once it's out, it's out. So to meet like being able to like say lock down their date, their information.

It's too late for that. But I do love your idea of like how do you into, you know, how do you kind of take a step back and look at what is our purpose. You know, we've talked a lot about companies now who feel like they're in a mission crisis, right? That what is their mission? And then how do they get out to the audience, right? And so the audience today is one that has everything right here on their phone. And, you know, Chad is always with you.

Google's always with you. Wikipedia is always with you. But why are you choosing one over the other is really important? And so, you know, like I said, I think partnerships are really important. And I think there's something to be said, you know, like I think we've talked about universities and education. Universities and schools are using AI tools now because they know that, you know, you're not going to get away from that.

So what about them partnering, though, because I'm old. So I remember going to the library and having to look up books. Remember, like they give you a list and you'd have to look up the books in the card catalog or go to the microbeche, which I think our kids only think happens in movies. So, like, what about having them partner with those curious learners, right? With education, with college class. You know, like, say, this is a resource that you can use as you're, you know, and let's talk about how you're going to cite Wikipedia and how you're going to do those

things. Because I don't think that, like I said, I think that because, the nature of AI the way it is now, even if it's, even if you tell, okay, open AI, you're like, you can't use us anymore. There's all these other places that you can go. Yeah. It's now, unfortunately, you're going to go for quality. You're going to go to deep seek. You're going to go somewhere else, right? So I guess my, my thought is I like that idea, though, Aaron, of like integrating your mission and your purpose and,

and figuring out new ways to bring people back to you. How do you back to you? And that's one of the things that I would love, like, if you start young, right? It's like going, library day was Wednesday at my elementary school. I remember that. Like, if you start young and say, hey, you know what? We're going to have 20 minutes of Wikipedia day every Wednesday, Wikipedia Wednesdays, in the elementary schools, they're going to start getting ingrained.

And that's a trusted source for me to go to when I want to learn about the dinosaurs in Colorado. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, Wikipedia, we've got ideas for you. So keep tapping on our shoulder. Yeah, we're here for you. That's going to do it for this episode.

If we fixed it. You're welcome. Thank you so much, Melissa. Thank you so much, Kedira. excellent points throughout. And thanks, Kadeera, for teeing us off so expertly on this multi-layered conversation.

For those of you listening, how would you fix Wikipedia? We'd love to hear from you. On social, you'll find us at We FixedItPod. And at we fixeditpod.com is our website. We're just flying through season two at this point. If you can't get enough and who can blame you, all of our archives are also at we fixed itpod.com.

If you've listened to any of our episodes, you know that this is not just another business podcast. We do things our way. And we're not a secret anymore. The show has hit the top 10 in business management on Apple Podcasts. And we're ranking consistently in the top 100 in the entire business category. With over 14,000 business podcasts on Apple, we know that you don't have time to listen to all of them. So that must mean you like what we're doing. And honestly, we wouldn't be here without you.

So keep doing what you're doing. Keep listening. Tell at least one person today. about our show throw some money at us we'll take it if you're a company that still needs fixing don't worry we hear you we'll get to you and you can thank us eventually and we will see you next time we hope you enjoyed this episode of we fixed it you're welcome we go into every episode somewhat cold and nothing we say should be construed as legal advice financial advice or anything that would get us in trouble all trademarks IP and brand elements remain property of their respective owners