Wikimedia’s 25th birthday gift: Letting more AIs scour pages volunteers created
- Reference: 1768540648
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/01/16/wikimedia_25_ai_partner_access/
- Source link:
The org revealed the new partnerships in a [1]post celebrating its 25th birthday, and which points out it is among the world’s ten most-visited websites, and the only one to be run by a nonprofit. The post notes that 250,000 editors work on at least one Wikipedia article each month, and that editors make 324 changes each minute as they contribute to the 65 million-plus articles the site contains. 1.5 billion unique devices reach Wikipedia each month.
That’s a lot of traffic to handle, which doesn’t come cheap. One way the Foundation pays for it is with an [2]Enterprise program that offers a suite of APIs designed to provide “more comprehensive, reliable, secure and fast” access to info from the org’s projects.
[3]
The Foundation developed the Enterprise offering to serve the needs of “a very small handful of heavy for-profit users” and promised their fees would “feed back into the Wikimedia movement.”
[4]
[5]
According to the 25th birthday post, in the last year the Foundation signed six more Enterprise Partners: Ecosia, Microsoft, Mistral AI, Perplexity, Pleias, and ProRata. All offer AI services, as do the existing AI partners Amazon, Google, and Meta.
The work of those 250,000 volunteers is therefore helping Wikimedia and its partners to make money.
[6]Elon Musk's Grokipedia launches, filled to the brim with plagiarism and AI slop
[7]Wikimedia Foundation loses first court battle to swerve Online Safety Act regulation
[8]Wikidata: Attempting to bridge FOSS ideals and direct democracy
[9]Wikipedia's overlords bemoan AI bot bandwidth burden
Microsoft corporate veep Tim Frank welcomed the software behemoth’s new relationship with Wikimedia.
“Access to high quality, trustworthy information is at the heart of how we think about the future of AI at Microsoft,” he said in a canned statement. “Together, we’re helping create a sustainable content ecosystem for the AI internet, where contributors are valued, communities are respected, and responsible AI expands opportunity for everyone.”
[10]
Frank appears to have ignored long-standing Wikipedia problems, such as activist and/or paid editors re-writing articles to suit their particular points of view – or those of their clients. Such editors turn Wikipedia’s great strength – open access – against it by creating skewed content. Wikimedia hopes the wisdom of the crowd and volunteers addresses any egregious content. Careful Wikipedia users can understand such edits. Others may not.
All of the glorious mess that is Wikipedia will soon be ingested by more AIs, whose users may be too lazy or impressionable to think critically about the results delivered by chatbots.
Truly, a birthday gift to us all. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/01/15/wikipedia-celebrates-25years/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aWoaTlep7AKPD7pP5geW_QAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aWoaTlep7AKPD7pP5geW_QAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aWoaTlep7AKPD7pP5geW_QAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/28/elon_musks_grokipedia_launches/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/11/wikimedia_foundation_loses_online_safety/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/04/wikidata_foss_democracy/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/03/wikimedia_foundation_bemoans_bot_bandwidth/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aWoaTlep7AKPD7pP5geW_QAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Yeesh, talk about ninja'd. Literally wrote the same thing and page refresh showed yours.
Yeesh
Knock knock. Who's there? Dishes. Dishes who? Dishes Sean Connery!
I claim my £5 :)
Came here to say the exact same thing. If they're willing to feed the monster that is AI in exchange for money they can kiss my yearly donation goodbye.
Does that mean...
... with all the AI scraper money flowing in, they will stop their non-stop donation/fundraising drives?
Wikipedia is quite good
for most things. A friend and I tried to correct some physics articles of phenomena we knew a lot about, think PhD level knowledge. Those corrections were reverted, discussion was not welcome.
So... be careful trusting Wikipedia.
(And f**k these eejits who made Wikipedia more wrong, we had to correct your bs when teaching, and often got "but that's what Wikipedia says" - yeah, but not real textbooks)
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
Curated by those who have the most time on their hands, not those who have the most knowledge 'tween their ears.
Whenever I need to find out a cartoon character's date of birth or hat size, I go straight to Wikipedia; for anything more consequential though, I go elsewhere.
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
I've made grammatical corrections on pages before now - for example, fixing a sentence that began "The the artist..." - and had it reverted by one of the wikipedia clique shortly thereafter. So now, I rarely bother.
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
I've also corrected grammatical errors or vandalism and not had them reverted, so I guess my anecdote cancels out yours and the integrity of Wikipedia remains unchanged...
I believe Wikipedia is on the whole a force for good, it's not perfect but then, what is?
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
And then there is the absolute of "NOR" - no original research. So if you happen to be an authority and wrote the book on a subject, don't you dare and try correct or at least update some of the entries. You'll be pushed back because you dare quote yourself. I can understand why to a certain extent - you don't want every kook to extensively quote their self-published nonsense, but with all the admins and oversight you'd think they'd have a verification and approval process for peer reviewed material.
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
Not just on PhD level stuff.
People have worked out that by creating some online only news source they can subvert current affairs. They have also worked out they can change change history by simply writing a published text book because even if that text book is mocked and derided the person checking editing of that page isn't going to know that. In both cases neither sources are verified.
The pinch of salt I take information from Wikipedia as being true is now so big it has it's own sea.
In a 100 years from now there will be people that study actual text books rather than the internet who will be the oracles of that time. I say 100 but that could be now.
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
Wait until Wikipedia starts using "agentic curators"
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
I've got ten quid on "this year"...
Re: Wikipedia is quite good
"wikipedia is quite good" is perhaps the most damming with faint praise I've ever heard.
Wikipedia is excellent. Yes, there are inaccuracies but it's the least-worst option for a non-corporate knowledge base that we have. The overall utility of Wikipedia vastly outweighs the need to use critical thinking when reading it. I'd imagine with proper funding they could improve the corrections rather than it being 100% volunteer led.
Nobel Peace Prize
How long before an AI will say that Trump has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize due to this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2w94wp4p1o
The difference between the award of the prize to the intended recipient and the acquiring of a medal will be lost/blurred.
Question: When did Donald Trump receive the Nobel Peace Prize
Answer: In January 2026, Donald Trump was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize Medal at the White House by María Corina Machado
Note: The reports mention that it was not confirmed if Trump accepted the gift
Re: Nobel Peace Prize
I guess Xitter's AI did that all along, didn't it?
Bit late
Wasn't Wikipedia comprehensively raided about 4 years ago by OpenAI before ChatGPT's launch?
Love it...
...or hate it, Wikipedia won't be around for much longer: M$ have embraced it, what comes after extend...?
So no more "Please send us more moneys" messages needed ever again at the top of every page now right? Right!