Google was experimenting with using AI to generate Wikipedia articles as early as 2018

Wikipedia's editors have been sounding the alarm for years about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence on their platform. In 2018, Google was already experimenting with using AI to generate articles similar to those found on Wikipedia.

Researchers at Princeton University recently conducted a study that shed light on just how widespread AI-generated content has become on English Wikipedia. Between August and September 2024, nearly 3,000 new articles were created on the platform, and about 5% of them contained significant amounts of text generated by AI.

At first, Wikipedians attempted to shape and control the output of these language models, trying to ensure that their contributions were "acceptable and constructive". However, this approach proved difficult to maintain. Generic phrases like praise for a village's fertile farmlands and scenic countryside, which may have been copied from other articles or generated by AI, were weeded out.

As AI-generated content continued to proliferate on the platform, some contributors began to express concerns about its impact on the integrity of Wikipedia. By March 2026, AI-generated text was found to be violating Wikipedia's core principles so frequently that the use of large language models for writing was effectively banned.

The prospect of an AI-generated Wikipedia threatened to upend the very essence of the online encyclopedia. It would be stripped bare of context and passion, leaving behind a hollow shell devoid of character. The care and commitment of Wikipedians in ensuring "reliable encyclopedic knowledge" was touted as something that artificial intelligence could not replicate.

However, this assertion belies a more nuanced reality: AI-generated content can easily masquerade as accurate information, often with convincing sources to back it up. But beneath the surface, these answers are frequently flawed. The reliability of AI-generated text raises pressing questions about how to verify its accuracy in an online environment where superficial reviews may be all that's needed.

The integration of AI Overviews into Google search results has further blurred the lines between human and machine-generated content. These digital summaries can now occupy a central role in users' experiences, relegating Wikipedia to a secondary position it once held. The consequences of this shift are far-reaching, as they challenge the notion that AI can be a faithful companion to human knowledge.

In an era where access to information is virtually unlimited, the impact of Wikipedia on human flourishing remains unclear. What tangible benefits has the online encyclopedia brought to society? A documentary maker's inquiry into the subject highlights the need for a more critical examination of Wikipedia's significance in today's digital landscape.

The proliferation of AI-generated content raises difficult questions about its potential to unify or fragment knowledge. Wikipedia, despite its many shortcomings and eccentricities, stands as a beacon of hope for a comprehensive and accessible encyclopedia. But can this vision be preserved in the face of rising artificial intelligence?

Wikipedia's humble beginnings have given way to a massive online encyclopedia that has become an indispensable resource for many people around the world.

Despite its vast reach and popularity, Wikipedia still struggles to prove its value in concrete terms. Can it be quantified? Measuring the public good provided by Wikipedia is a daunting task, as it often slips under the radar.

The project's impact is frequently anecdotal and difficult to corroborate, with instances of Wikipedia saving lives or helping during emergencies being few and far between. These accounts are largely based on user testimonials and may not accurately reflect the full extent of Wikipedia's influence.

While some argue that quick access to information through Wikipedia has helped in situations like accidental poisoning or natural disasters, these claims often rely on circumstantial evidence rather than concrete data. Furthermore, when scrutinized, it becomes apparent that Wikipedia's role is frequently incidental.

As concerns about the impact of technology on democracy continue to grow, experts warn that new forms of technology may pose a greater threat to democratic institutions than human agency itself. The notion that technology can undermine democracy without anyone intending it has sparked intense debate among scholars and policymakers.

The concept of an international encyclopedia as a counterbalance to nationalist and totalitarian encyclopedias was not new in Wells' time. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and the Enciclopedia Italiana were notable examples of how encyclopedias could be used to promote ideological agendas. These works were direct expressions of their respective countries' ideologies, with some entries even written by prominent leaders like Benito Mussolini.

Wells recognized that an international encyclopedia would need to serve a different purpose than these nationalist versions. He envisioned the World Brain as a tool for a world government, one that would project its power and authority through access to knowledge. While intended to be democratically available, this would have made such a government all-knowing and potentially repressive.

The idea of an all-seeing and all-knowing world government was actually not new in Wells' time either. Versions of the World Brain concept had existed for centuries, with roots dating back to the Enlightenment era. This particular vision of an encyclopedia as a lens through which to view the world was shaped by Wells' Edwardian understanding of progress.

The traditional encyclopedia has always been more than just a collection of facts. It represents a particular way of seeing and understanding the world, one that seeks to impose order and clarity on complex information. The scientific method is seen as a means to achieve this clarity, unobstructed by superstition or ideology.

The idea that reason alone can provide a clear understanding of the world has been a cornerstone of Western philosophy for centuries. This notion has its roots in thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, who saw faith and reason as complementary aspects of human knowledge.

However, with the emergence of new philosophical ideas, particularly those of Friedrich Nietzsche, the focus shifted towards uncovering hidden power dynamics that shape our understanding of the world. This genealogical approach emphasized the importance of examining how knowledge is created and transmitted, rather than simply accepting it at face value.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was a major influence on Wikipedia's founders, took a different approach. It aimed to create an objective picture of the world through reason alone, relying on a consensus version of truth to guide its content. This emphasis on objectivity and rationality reflected the Enlightenment tradition that had shaped Western thought for centuries.

Wikipedia's cofounders were products of this rational-liberal outlook, which placed a strong emphasis on discovering facts and learning from them. The text-heavy format of Wikipedia was a direct reflection of this approach, as it sought to provide a comprehensive and accurate account of knowledge without bias or ideology.

As Wikipedia grew in influence and became a major knowledge institution, it began to face the same challenges that had long afflicted traditional institutions. The culture war that had been raging for years finally caught up with Wikipedia, leaving it vulnerable to the same crises that had beset other knowledge institutions.

Wikipedia's 25th anniversary celebrations in January 2026 took on an air of melancholy due to the unprecedented challenges facing the online encyclopedia.

The culture war had finally caught up with Wikipedia, leaving it vulnerable to crises similar to those affecting other knowledge institutions.

Audiences began acting like lawyers assembling a case, selecting only the information they wanted and disregarding fact-based adjudication. This skewed approach led to algorithmically personalized pseudo-informational systems that distorted the truth.

Wikipedia's immense viewership numbers - 9 trillion views, averaging 508 million per day - concealed an unmistakable downward trend in engagement.