Wiki Article
User:Kaliper1
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 | This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaliper1. |
| — Wikipedian — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Just as this K-1 cart braves the rugged hills and solemn valleys, so too shall I press onward, threading the silver wires of wisdom through the land, that light and learning may follow in my wake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Account statistics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joined | 08:25, 10 August 2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| First edit | 05:03, 25 June 2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Signature | Kaliper¹｜t. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Userboxes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.JPG){kind=small}
Kaliper1, also known as K1, is a Wikipedian editor who has been editing articles since 25 June 2020. Kaliper1 began contributing to various Wikimedia sites by initially focusing on making minor improvements such as correcting grammatical errors, adding citations, fixing formatting, adding category and image tags, captions, and links. This hobby served as a pastime after half-retiring from other endeavors. However, due to the upheaval of 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic, kaliper1 found themselves with an abundance of free time, leading to feelings of boredom and a desire to make a positive impact on the world. As a result, they turned their attention towards contributing to Wikipedia and other related sites, with the aim of making meaningful contributions to the broader online community.
Contributions
[edit]To many to list them down, You can see my Wikipedia contributions here and Commons uploads, in which some are still in display, are here.
Persons of interests in China
[edit]One of the first image/texts edits I've done in Wikipedia was concerning persons of interests in China. Specifically 1920-1940s Manchukuo and Northeast China. I've initially chosen this due to the fact that I was returning back from Beijing. Visiting Museums, Universities (Jilin and Northeast), Old Buildings, and Religious sites in northeast china, that's plastered with history, intrigues me. And during my time there, I've had uploaded photos on Baidu baike (Chinese: 百度百科; pinyin: Bǎidù Bǎikē; lit. 'Baidu Encyclopedia'), A chinese version of Wikipedia per-say. Mainly about unknown and obscure old photos catalogued in museums from the 1920-40's. As of now i've only uploaded Pictures of Feng Yong (Chinese: 馮庸) and Ying Qianli (Chinese: 英千里) from my Baidu baike postings and scouring. So far also i'm planning to add all of my picture postings in Baidu baike site to wikipedia for the world to see. On 2024, I've revisited China, specifically in the Dunhuang area where I traversed the via a local bus. This visit was specifically towards interest within the Silk road, eventually reaching Xi'an. Most of my photos was corrupted due to a damaged SD drive, but thankfully some was managed to get extracted. I'll upload some here at commons.
Everything Timor-Leste
[edit]I have had the opportunity to contribute to the Wikipedia pages related to Timor-Leste, a small country situated between Indonesia and Australia. Specifically, my focus has been on editing and improving the political and geographical sections of these pages. One significant challenge I encountered was the scarcity of information on the English version of the Timor-Leste Wiki in comparison to the more extensive and detailed German Wiki pages. To address this disparity, I decided to translate relevant pages from German to English, which allowed me to make meaningful contributions to the English language wiki community. I noticed that there were far more German language Wikis about Timor-Leste than English, and the Indonesian Wiki was highly underdeveloped. Given that I had some understanding of the German language, albeit a bit rusty and not in use for a long time, I decided to contribute my skills and knowledge to this cause. Thus far, I have been able to make a meaningful contribution by translating and expanding several Wiki pages related to Timor-Leste by also joining WikiProject East Timor.
One out of many examples of the changes I made to these Wiki pages can be seen in the pages for KOTA, PUN, and PST, where I added detailed information on the geography and politics of these regions. I find Timor-Leste to be a fascinating country with a rich cultural history and also personal history! In which, motivated me to contribute to these Wiki pages. I wish to visit Timor-Leste one last time. However, that is a story for another time. In the meantime, I hope others can appreciate the work that I, and many others, have done to improve the quality and depth of information available on Timor-Leste.
ASEAN
[edit]My interest in ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) comes from a long and deep fascination with regional cooperation, diplomacy, and the cultural ties that bind Southeast Asia together. I began editing and improving ASEAN-related articles to clarify and expand historical contexts, particularly those involving the founding period in the late 1960s. Much of my work has focused on the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration), the formation meetings in Bangkok, and the early diplomatic efforts involving Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. I was inspired to contribute after studying archival newspapers and documents from the region, including materials from national archives and various foreign ministry publications during my time in university.
My goal is to help make ASEAN articles more comprehensive and accessible, not only for Southeast Asian readers but also for the wider global community. I have a mission to make ASEAN related articles to be comparable to the standards of WikiProject European Union; as much as 1:1. As I, and many parts of the community, see the EU as our main role model; and we should follow their example. Indeed, it is a one-man band. But it is hoped that these efforts will encourage greater understanding of ASEAN’s role in regional stability, economic growth, and cultural exchange in Asia. If the EU can work, so to does ASEAN. And if a sitting Defence Secretary of the U.S. does not know what ASEAN is,[1] then there is much more work to be done.
Pop Kreatif
[edit]If you're here from the Pop Kreatif article, I'd recommend listen to this Playlist first to get the idea of what is truly, Indonesia's City Pop. [Give it a try.]
Current drafts 
[edit]
Here are Kaliper1's current drafts. You may see my work being done below.
- Draft:Sri Bintang Pamungkas - Research Phase (On Hold)
- 11.5% - Draft:ASEAN-5 - Research Phase
- 11.5% - Draft:Baguio Conference - Research Phase
- 1% - Draft:Malayo-Chamic languages - Research (on hold)
- 15% - Draft:Galang Rambu Anarki (song) - Start
-0%
Expansions. Articles not made by me, but have the obligation to look better than my articles.
- ASEAN Declaration by - Expansion
- 64%
> Reason: Updated needed (c.2005)
- Indonesia and weapons of mass destruction - Research
- 9%
> Reason: Suspect. per WP:LLM.
Joint projects in WP:Indonesia.
To learn how to make an article in Wikipedia for free, try Article Wizard.
Showing impact data for Kaliper1
Please enable JavaScript to view this component.
Articles
|
|---|
Articles I have significantly contributed to or created[edit]
Articles I've started or developed with emerging importance[edit] |
Barnstars
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newspaper
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kaliper1 Wikipedia's 25th anniversary is here! Happy birthday — by ObserveOwl
Wikipedia's 25th anniversary: join the live birthday event![edit]We're happy to remind you that January 15, 2026, marks the 25th anniversary of the 2001 inception of Wikipedia. To commemorate, the Village pump proposals process found consensus to display a variant of the puzzle globe logo for the anniversary. Celebratory events around the world can be found at meta:Wikipedia 25/Events. A notable entry on the event list is the first Wiki meetup in Iraq. As part of the anniversary, Wikipedia's 25th birthday party will be hosted virtually on January 15, starting from 16:00 UTC, although the pre-party countdown will start at 15:45 UTC. The virtual celebration will be broadcasted both on the Wikimedia Foundation website – through Owncast – where users will be able to watch the party in Arabic, French, Spanish, Portuguese or Chinese. The same event will also be hosted live on Wikipedia's official YouTube channel, although it will just provide the English localization. Come join the party! – B and O WikiConference North America 2026 seeks applicants for travel scholarships[edit]WikiConference North America will be held in Edmonton, Alberta, in September 2026. The organizers invite Wikipedia editors from Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean to apply for travel scholarships until 15 February. While much of the conference is in English and may be of interest to English Wikipedia editors, there are always French and Spanish speaking groups present, and all of the other language communities are also welcome. – BR Brief notes[edit] A German hope chest
Kaliper1 Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call
This piece was first published on Meta-wiki on January 9, 2026, with the preamble "This is a personal essay. It reflects the views of the author."
Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call
The internet is booming. We are not.
By Christophe Henner - schiste . Contents
Part I: the crisis[edit]92 points
The gap between internet growth (+83%) and our page views (-9%) since 2016
On 15 January, 2026, Wikipedia turns 25. A quarter century of free knowledge. The largest collaborative project humanity has ever undertaken. Sixty million articles in over 300 languages.[2] Built by volunteers. Free forever. I've been part of this movement for more than half of that journey (twenty years). I've served as Chair of Wikimedia France and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. I've weathered crises, celebrated victories, made mistakes, broken some things, built other things, and believed every day that what we built matters. We should be celebrating. Instead, I'm writing this because the numbers tell a story that demands urgent attention. It's nothing brand new, especially if you read/listen to my ranting, but now it's dire. +83%
-9%
↑ A 92 percentage point divergence[5] ↑
Since 2016, humanity has added 2.7 billion people to the internet.[3] Nearly three billion new potential readers, learners, contributors. In that same period, our page views declined. Not stagnated. Declined. The world has never been more online, and yet, fewer and fewer people are using our projects. To put this in concrete terms, if Wikimedia had simply kept pace with internet growth, we would be serving 355 billion page views annually today. Instead, we're at 177 billion. We're missing half the audience we should have. And these numbers are probably optimistic. In twenty years of working with web analytics, I've learned one thing: the metrics always lie, and never in your favor. AI crawlers have exploded, up 300% year-over-year according to Arc XP's CDN data,[6] now approaching 40% of web traffic according to Imperva's 2024 Bad Bot Report.[7] How much of our "readership" is actually bots harvesting content for AI training? Wikimedia's analytics team has worked to identify and filter bot traffic, and I've excluded known bots from the data in this analysis, but we know for a fact that detection always misses a significant portion. We don't know precisely how much. But I'd wager our real human audience is lower than the charts show. As this piece was being finalized in January 2026, third-party analytics confirmed these trends. Similarweb data shows Wikipedia lost over 1.1 billion visits per month between 2022-2025, a 23% decline.[8] The convenient explanation is "AI summaries." I'm skeptical. What we're witnessing is something more profound: a generational shift in how people relate to knowledge itself. Younger users don't search. They scroll. They don't read articles. They consume fragments. The encyclopedia form factor, our twenty-year bet, may be losing relevance faster than any single technology can explain. AI is an accelerant, not the fire.
But readership is only part of the crisis. The pipeline that feeds our entire ecosystem (new contributors) is collapsing even faster. -36%
Drop in new registrations[9]
(2016: 317K/mo → 2025: 202K/mo) 2.1×
Edits per new user[10]
(Growing concentration risk) +37%
Edit volume increase[11]
(Fewer editors work harder) Read those numbers together: we're acquiring 36% fewer new contributors while total edits have increased. This means we're extracting more work from a shrinking base of committed volunteers. The system is concentrating, not growing. We are becoming a smaller club working harder to maintain something fewer people see. And let's be honest about who that club is. The contributor base we're losing was never representative to begin with. English Wikipedia, still the largest by far, is written predominantly by men from North America and Western Europe.[12] Hindi Wikipedia has 160,000 articles for 600 million speakers. Bengali has 150,000 for 230 million speakers. Swahili, spoken by 100 million people across East Africa, has 80,000.[2][13] The "golden age" we mourn was never golden for the Global South. It was an English-language project built by English-language editors from English-language sources. Our decline isn't just a quantity problem. It's the bill coming due for a diversity debt we've been accumulating for two decades. The 2.7 billion people who came online since 2016? They came from India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Iraq, Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Ghana. They came looking for knowledge in their languages, about their contexts, written by people who understand their lives. And we weren't there. We're still not there. The contributor pipeline isn't just shrinking. It was never built to reach them in the first place. Some will say: we're simply better at fighting vandalism now, so we need fewer editors. It's true we've improved our anti-vandalism tools over the years. But we've been fighting vandalism consistently for two decades. This isn't a sudden efficiency gain. And even if anti-vandalism explains some of the concentration, it cannot explain all the data pointing in the same direction: declining page views, declining new registrations, declining editor recruitment, all while the internet doubles in size. One efficiency improvement doesn't explain a systemic pattern across every metric. Let me be clear about what these numbers do and don't show. Content quality is up. Article count is up. Featured articles are up. The encyclopedia has never been better. That's not spin. That's the work of an extraordinary community that built something remarkable. The question isn't whether the work is good. It's whether the ecosystem that produces the work is sustainable. And the answer, increasingly, is no. We've now hit the limits of that optimization. For years, efficiency gains could compensate for a shrinking contributor base. That's no longer true. When edits per new user doubles, you're not seeing a healthy community getting more efficient. You're seeing concentration risk. Every experienced editor who burns out or walks away now costs exponentially more to replace, because there's no pipeline behind them. Our efficiency gains can no longer compensate for when an experienced editor stops editing. The quality metrics aren't evidence that we're fine. They're evidence that we built something worth saving, and that the people maintaining it are increasingly irreplaceable. Why page views matter, and what they miss[edit]Some will ask: why do page views matter so much? We're a nonprofit. We don't sell ads. Who cares if fewer people visit? Three answers:
So when I say page views are declining, I'm not pointing at a vanity metric. I'm pointing at survival, mission, and motivation, all under pressure simultaneously. Some will counter: fewer readers means lower infrastructure costs. That's true in the moment it happens. If readership declines, recruitment declines. To compensate, we need to invest more in active recruitment, better editing tools, and editor retention, all of which cost money. The short-term savings from lower traffic are swamped by the long-term costs of a collapsing contributor pipeline. We need to build additional revenue streams precisely so we can keep improving editor efficiency, keep recruiting people, and fund the work required to do that. The cost doesn't disappear. It shifts. The uncomfortable addition: our content is probably reaching more people than ever. It's just reaching them through intermediaries we don't control: search snippets, AI assistants, apps, voice devices. The knowledge spreads. The mission arguably succeeds. But we don't see it, we can't fund ourselves from it, and our editors don't feel it. This creates a dangerous gap. The world benefits from our work more than ever. We benefit from it less than ever. That's not sustainable. The Strategic imperative: Both/And[edit]Some will say: focus on page views. Optimize the website. Fight for direct traffic. That's the mission we know. Others will say: page views are yesterday's metric. Embrace the new distribution. Meet people where they are, even if "where they are" is inside an AI assistant. Both camps are half right. We need both. Not one or the other. Both. We need to defend page views, because they're survival today. Better mobile experience. Better search optimization. Better reader features. Whatever it takes to keep people coming directly to us. AND we need to build new models, because page views alone won't sustain us in five years. Revenue from entities that use our content at scale. New metrics that capture use and reuse beyond our site. New ways to show editors their impact even when it happens off-platform. The two-year window isn't about abandoning what works. It's about building what's next while what works still works. If we wait until page views are critical, we won't have the resources or time to build alternatives. Expanding what we measure[edit]Page views remain essential. But we need to add:
The goal isn't to replace page views with these metrics. It's to see the full picture. A world where page views decline but reach expands is different from a world where both decline. We need to know which world we're in, and right now, we're flying blind. Two forms of production[edit]Here's a frame that might help community members see where they fit: we need both human production and machine production. Human production is what we do now. Editors write and maintain content. Community verifies and debates. It's slow, high-trust, transparent. It cannot be automated. It is irreplaceable. Machine production is what we could do. Structured data through Wikidata. APIs that serve verification endpoints. Confidence ratings on claims. Services that complement AI systems rather than compete with them. It's fast, scalable, programmatic. These aren't competing approaches. They're complementary. Human production creates the verified knowledge base. Machine production makes it usable at AI scale. Content producers (the editors who write and verify) and content distributors (the systems that package and serve) both matter. Both need investment. Both are part of the mission. If you're an editor: your work powers not just Wikipedia, but an entire ecosystem of AI systems that need verified information. That's more impact, not less. The distribution changed. The importance of what you do only grew.
Three eras of Wikimedia growth[edit]To understand where we are, we need to understand where we've been, and be honest about what we built and for whom. The relationship between Wikimedia and the broader internet has gone through three distinct phases. I call them the Pioneers, the Cool Kids, and the Commodity:[14] 2001–2007
The Pioneers: Outpacing the Market
Internet +18%/yr · Edits +238%/yr · Registrations +451%/yr
Internet users grew ~18% annually. We scaled orders of magnitude faster than the internet itself. But let's be clear about who "we" was: overwhelmingly English-speaking, male, from wealthy countries with fast internet and time to spare. We built something extraordinary, and we built it for people who looked like us.
2008–2015
The Cool Kids: Keeping Pace
Internet +8%/yr · Edits +12%/yr · Registrations +10%/yr
Wikipedia became mainstream, a household name. But mainstream where? The global internet was shifting. Mobile-first users in the Global South were coming online by the hundreds of millions, and we kept optimizing for desktop editors in the Global North. We called it success. It was the beginning of the gap.
2016–Now
The Commodity: Falling Behind
Internet +7%/yr · Edits +4%/yr · Registrations -5%/yr
Page views: declining. New registrations: collapsing. The billions who came online found an encyclopedia that didn't speak their languages, didn't cover their topics, and wasn't designed for their devices. We became infrastructure for AI companies while remaining invisible to the people we claimed to serve. Our content powers the internet. But whose content? Whose internet?
The pandemic briefly disguised this trend. In April 2020, page views spiked 25% as the world stayed home. New registrations jumped 28%.[15] For a moment, it looked like we might be turning a corner. We weren't. The spike didn't translate into sustained growth. By 2022, we were back on the declining trajectory, and the decline has accelerated since. The harsh truth: while the internet nearly doubled in size, Wikimedia's share of global attention was cut in half. And the people we lost, or never had, are precisely the people the internet added: young, mobile-first, from the Global South. We went from being essential infrastructure of the web to being one option among many, and increasingly, an option that doesn't speak their language, literally or figuratively. Part II: why this matters now[edit]These numbers would be concerning in any era. In 2026, they're existential. We're living through the full deployment of digital society. Not the internet's arrival (that happened decades ago) but its complete integration into how humanity thinks, learns, and makes decisions. Three forces are reshaping the landscape we occupy: The AI transformation[edit]At several points in debates about our future, AI has been mentioned as a "tool," something we can choose to adopt or not, integrate or resist. I believe this is a fundamental misreading of the situation. AI is not a tool; it is a paradigm shift. I've seen this before. In 2004, when I joined Wikipedia, we faced similar debates about education. What do we do about students who copy-paste from Wikipedia? We saw the same reactions: some institutions tried to ban Wikipedia, others installed filters, others punished students who cited it. All these defensive approaches failed. Why? Because you cannot prohibit access to a tool that has become ubiquitous. Because students always find workarounds. And above all, because prohibition prevents critical learning about the tool itself. Wikipedia eventually became a legitimate educational resource, not despite its limitations, but precisely because those limitations were taught. Teachers learned to show students how to use Wikipedia as a starting point, how to verify cited sources, how to cross-reference. That transformation took nearly fifteen years. With AI, we don't have fifteen years. The technology is advancing at unprecedented speed. Large language models trained on our content are now answering questions directly. When someone asks ChatGPT or Gemini a factual question, they get an answer synthesized partly from our 25 years of work, but they never visit our site, never see our citation standards, never encounter our editing community. The value we created flows outward without attribution, without reciprocity, without any mechanism for us to benefit or even to verify how our knowledge is being used. This isn't theft. It's evolution. And we have to evolve with it or become a historical artifact that AI once trained on. A footnote in the training data of models that have moved on without us. Some will say: we've faced skepticism before and won. When Wikipedia started, experts said amateurs couldn't build an encyclopedia. We proved them wrong. Maybe AI skeptics are right to resist. But there's a crucial difference. Wikipedia succeeded by being native to the internet, not by ignoring it. We didn't beat Britannica by being better at print. We won by "understanding" that distribution had fundamentally changed. The communities that tried to ban Wikipedia, that installed filters, that punished students for citing it. They wasted a decade they could have spent adapting. We can do it again. I believe we can. But ChatGPT caught up in less than three years. The pace is different. We competed with Britannica over fifteen years. We have maybe two years to figure out our relationship with AI before the window closes. And here's what makes this urgent: OpenAI already trained on our content. Google already did. The question isn't whether AI will use Wikipedia. It already has. The question is whether we'll have any say in how, whether we'll benefit from it, whether we'll shape the terms. Right now, the answer to all three is no. The data is stark. Cloudflare reports that Anthropic's crawl-to-refer ratio is nearly 50,000:1. For every visitor they send back to a website, their crawlers have already harvested tens of thousands of pages.[16] Stanford research found click-through rates from AI chatbots are just 0.33%, compared to 8.6% for Google Search.[17] They take everything. They return almost nothing. That's the deal we've accepted by default. The Trust crisis[edit]Misinformation doesn't just compete with accurate information. It actively undermines the infrastructure of truth. Every day, bad actors work to pollute the information ecosystem. Wikipedia has been, for 25 years, a bulwark against this tide. Our rigorous sourcing requirements, our neutral point of view policy, our transparent editing history. These are battle-tested tools for establishing what's true. But a bulwark no one visits is just a monument. We need to be in the fight, not standing on the sidelines. The attention economy[edit]Mobile has fundamentally changed how people consume information. Our data shows the shift: mobile devices went from 62% of our traffic in 2016 to 74% in 2025.[18] Mobile users have shorter sessions, expect faster answers, and are more likely to get those answers from featured snippets, knowledge panels, and AI assistants: all of which extract our content without requiring a visit. We've spent two decades optimizing for a desktop web that no longer exists. The 2.7 billion people who came online since 2016? Most of them have never used a desktop computer. They experience the internet through phones. And on phones, Wikipedia is increasingly invisible. Our content surfaces through other apps, other interfaces, other brands. The threat isn't that Wikipedia will be destroyed. It's worse than that. The threat is that Wikipedia will become unknown: a temple filled with aging Wikimedians, self-satisfied by work nobody looks at anymore. Part III: what we got wrong[edit]For 25 years, we've told ourselves a story: Wikipedia's value is its content. Sixty million articles. The sum of all human knowledge. Free forever. This story is true, but incomplete. And the incompleteness is now holding us back. The process is the product[edit]Wikipedia's real innovation was never the encyclopedia. It was the process that creates and maintains the encyclopedia. The talk pages. The citation standards. The consensus mechanisms. The edit history. The ability to watch any claim evolve over time, to see who changed what and why, to trace every fact to its source. This isn't just content production. It's a scalable "truth"-finding mechanism. We've been treating our greatest innovation as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. AI can generate text. It cannot verify claims. It cannot trace provenance. It cannot show its reasoning. It cannot update itself when facts change. Everything we do that AI cannot is the moat. But only if we recognize it and invest in it. This capability, collaborative truth-finding at scale, may be worth more than the content itself in an AI world. But we've been giving it away for free while treating our website as our core product. The website is now a production platform[edit]Our mental model is: people visit Wikipedia → people donate → people edit → cycle continues. Reality is: AI trains on Wikipedia → users ask AI → AI answers → no one visits → donation revenue falls → ??? As the website becomes "just" a production platform (a place where editors work) we need to embrace that reality rather than pretending we're still competing for readers. The readers have found other ways to access our content. We should follow them. Our revenue model assumes 2005[edit]Almost all Wikimedia revenue comes from individual donations, driven by banner campaigns during high-traffic periods. This worked when we were growing. It's increasingly fragile as we're shrinking. Every major AI company has trained on our content. Every search engine surfaces it. Every voice assistant uses it to answer questions. The value we create flows outward, and nothing comes back except banner fundraising from individual users who are, increasingly, finding our content elsewhere. We need to be able to generate revenue from entities that profit from our work. Not to become a for-profit enterprise, but to sustain a mission that costs real money to maintain. Let me be precise about what this means, because I know some will hear "toll booth" and recoil. Content remains free. The CC BY-SA license isn't going anywhere. Anyone can still access, reuse, and build on our content. That's the mission. Services are different from content. We already do this through Wikimedia Enterprise: companies that need high-reliability, low-latency, well-formatted access to our data pay for serviced versions. The content is free; the service layer isn't. This isn't betraying the mission. It's sustaining it. What I'm proposing is expanding this model. Verification APIs. Confidence ratings. Real-time fact-checking endpoints. Services that AI companies need and will pay for, because they need trust infrastructure they can't build themselves. The moat isn't our content. Everyone already has our content. The moat is our process: the community-verified, transparent, traceable provenance that no AI can replicate. We're not proposing to replace donation revenue. We're proposing to supplement it. Right now, 100% of our sustainability depends on people visiting our site and seeing donation banners. That's fragile. If entities using our content at scale contributed to sustainability, we'd be more resilient, not replacing individual donors, but diversifying beyond them. Our relationship with AI is adversarial[edit]The hostility to AI tools within parts of our community is understandable. But it's also strategic malpractice. We've seen this movie before, with Wikipedia itself. Institutions that tried to ban or resist Wikipedia lost years they could have spent learning to work with it. By the time they adapted, the world had moved on. AI isn't going away. The question isn't whether to engage. It's whether we'll shape how our content is used or be shaped by others' decisions. The opportunity we're missing[edit]In a world flooded with AI-generated text, what's scarce isn't information. It's verified information. What's valuable isn't content. It's the process that makes content trustworthy. We've spent 25 years building the world's most sophisticated system for collaborative truth-finding at scale. We can tell you not just what's claimed, but why it's reliable, with receipts. We can show you the conversation that established consensus. We can trace the provenance of every fact. What if we built products that gave confidence ratings on factual claims? What if we helped improve AI outputs by injecting verified, non-generative data into generated answers? What if being "Wikipedia-verified" became a standard the world relied on. The trust layer that sits between AI hallucinations and human decisions? This is the moat. This is the opportunity. But only if we move fast enough to claim it before someone else figures out how to replicate what we do, or before the world decides it doesn't need verification at all. What could we offer, concretely? Pre-processed training data, cleaner and cheaper than what AI companies scrape and process themselves. Confidence ratings based on our 25 years of edit history, which facts are stable versus contested, which claims have been challenged and survived scrutiny. A live verification layer that embeds Wikipedia as ground truth inside generated answers. A hybrid multimodal multilingual vectorized dataset spanning Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource, and Wikidata. And the "Wikipedia-verified" trust mark that AI products could display to signal quality. Wikimedia Enterprise already exists to build exactly this kind of offering.[19] The infrastructure is there. The question is whether we have the collective will to resource it, expand it, and treat it as strategic priority rather than side project. Our investment in people[edit]The data is clear: we're losing new editors. The website that built our community is no longer attracting new contributors at sufficient rates. We need new relays. This might mean funding local events that bring new people into the movement. It might mean rethinking what counts as contribution. It might mean, and I know this is controversial, considering whether some kinds of work should be compensated. The current money flows primarily to maintaining website infrastructure. If the website is now primarily a production platform rather than a consumer destination, maybe the priority should be recruiting the producers. And here's what this means for existing editors: investing in production means investing in you. Better tools. Faster workflows. Measurable quality metrics that show the impact of your work. If we're serious about content as our core product, then the people who make the content become the priority, not as an afterthought, but as the central investment thesis. The goal isn't just to have better content faster; it's to make the work of editing more satisfying, more visible, more valued. Our mission itself[edit]Are we an encyclopedia? A knowledge service? A trust infrastructure? The "sum of all human knowledge" vision is beautiful, but the method of delivery may need updating even if the mission doesn't. In 2018, I argued we should think of ourselves as "Knowledge as a Service". The most trusted brand in the world when it comes to data and information, regardless of where or how people access it. That argument was premature then. It's urgent now. Our failure on Knowledge Equity[edit]This is the hardest section to write. Because it implicates all of us, including me. For 25 years, we've talked about being "the sum of all human knowledge." We've celebrated our 300+ language editions. We've funded programs in the Global South. We've written strategy documents about "knowledge equity" and "serving diverse communities."[20] And yet. English Wikipedia has 6.8 million articles. Hindi, with over 600 million speakers when including second-language users, has 160,000. The ratio is 42:1.[2][13] Not because Hindi speakers don't want to contribute, but because we built systems, tools, and cultures that center the experience of English-speaking editors from wealthy countries. The knowledge gaps aren't bugs. They're the predictable output of a system designed by and for a narrow slice of humanity. Our decline is the diversity debt coming due. We optimized for the editors we had rather than the editors we needed. We celebrated efficiency gains that masked a shrinking, homogenizing base. We built the most sophisticated vandalism-fighting tools in the world, and those same tools systematically reject good-faith newcomers, especially those who don't already know the unwritten rules. Research shows that newcomers from underrepresented groups are reverted faster and given less benefit of the doubt.[21] We've known this for over a decade. We've studied it, published papers about it, created working groups. The trends continued. The 2030 Strategy named knowledge equity as a pillar.[20] Implementation stalled. The Movement Charter process tried to redistribute power. It fractured.[22] Every time we approach real structural change. The kind that would actually shift resources and authority toward underrepresented communities. We find reasons to slow down, study more, consult further. The process becomes the product. And the gaps persist. Here's the uncomfortable truth: the Global North built Wikipedia, and the Global North still controls it. The Foundation is in San Francisco. The largest chapters are in Germany, France, the UK.[23] The technical infrastructure assumes fast connections and desktop computers. The sourcing standards privilege published, English-language, Western academic sources, which means entire knowledge systems are structurally excluded because they don't produce the "reliable sources" our policies require.[24] I'm not saying this to assign blame. I'm saying it because our decline cannot be separated from our failure to grow beyond our origins. The 2.7 billion people who came online since 2016 aren't choosing TikTok over Wikipedia just because TikTok is flashier. They're choosing platforms that speak to them, that reflect their experiences, that don't require mastering arcane markup syntax and navigating hostile gatekeepers to participate. If we want to survive, knowledge equity cannot be a side initiative. It must be front and center of the strategy. Not because it's morally right (though it is) but because it's existentially necessary. The future of the internet is not in Berlin or San Francisco. It's in Lagos, Jakarta, São Paulo, Dhaka. If we're not there, we're nowhere. And being there means more than translating English articles. It means content created by those communities, about topics they care about, using sources they trust, through tools designed for how they actually use the internet. It means redistributing Foundation resources dramatically toward the Global South. It means accepting that English Wikipedia's dominance might need to diminish for the movement to survive. That's the disruption we haven't been willing to face. Maybe it's time. Part IV: a path forward[edit]I've watched and been part of this movement for twenty years. And I've seen this pattern before. And some old timers may remember how much I like being annoying. We identify a problem. We form a committee. We draft a process. We debate the process. We modify the process. We debate the modifications. Years pass. The world moves on. We start over. We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it. Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop? But I, for one, am exhausted of it. No one here is doing something wrong. It is the system we built that is wrong. We designed governance for a different era. One where we were pioneers inventing something new, where deliberation was a feature not a bug, where the world would wait for us to figure things out. I should be honest here: I helped build this system. I was Board Chair from 2016 to 2018. I saw these trends emerging. In 2016, I launched the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process discussion precisely because I believed we needed to change course before crisis hit. The diagnosis was right. The recommendations were largely right. The execution failed. Three years of deliberation, thousands of participants, a beautiful strategic direction, and then the pandemic hit, priorities shifted, and the implementation stalled. The strategy documents sit on Meta-Wiki, mostly unread, while the trends they warned about have accelerated. I bear responsibility for that. Every Board Chair faces the same constraint: authority without control. We can set direction, but we can't force implementation. The governance system diffuses power so effectively that even good strategy dies in execution. That's not an excuse. It's a diagnosis. And it's why this time must be different. Part of the problem is structural ambiguity. The Wikimedia Foundation sits at the center of the movement, holding the money, the technology, the trademarks, but often behaves as if it's just one stakeholder among many. In 2017, it launched the Strategy process but didn't lead it to completion. It neither stepped aside to let communities decide nor took full responsibility for driving implementation. This isn't anyone's fault. It's a design flaw from an earlier era. The Foundation's position made sense when we were small and scrappy. It makes less sense now. The governance structures that carried us for 25 years may not be fit for the next 25. That's not failure. That's evolution. Everything should be on the table, including how we organize ourselves. The world is no longer waiting. The Two-Year Window
By Wikipedia's 26th birthday, we need to have made fundamental decisions about revenue models, AI integration, knowledge equity, and contributor recruitment. By Wikipedia's 27th birthday, we need to have executed them.
That's the window. After that, we're managing decline. Why two years? There is no way to rationalize it. All I know is that every second counts when competing solutions catch up with you in 3 years. At current decline rates, another 10–15% drop in page views threatens the donation revenue and our contributor pipeline is collapsing fast enough that two more years of decline means the replacement generation simply won't exist in sufficient numbers. And one thing the short Internet history has shown us is that the pace of decline accelerates with time. Is two years precise? No. It's an educated guess, a gut feeling, a forcing function. But the direction is clear, and "later" isn't a real option. We've already been late. The urgency isn't manufactured. It's overdue. This time, I'm not calling for another movement-wide negotiation. Those have run their course. I'm calling on the Wikimedia Foundation to finally take the leadership we need. To stop waiting for consensus that will never come. To gather a small group of trusted advisors, and not the usual suspects, not another room of Global North veterans, but people who represent where the internet is actually going. Do the hard thinking behind closed doors, then open it wide for debate, and repeat. Fast cycles. Closed deep work, open challenge, back to closed work. Not a three-year drafting exercise. A six-month sprint. This needs to be intentionally disruptive. Radical in scope. The kind of process that makes people uncomfortable precisely because it might actually change things, including who holds power, where resources flow, and whose knowledge counts. The Foundation has the resources, the legitimacy, and. If it chooses. The courage. What it's lacked is the mandate to lead without endless permission-seeking. I'm saying: take it. Lead. We'll argue about the details, but someone has to move first. Let's do it. Part V: the birthday question[edit]Twenty-five years ago, a group of idealists believed humanity could build a free encyclopedia together. They were right. What they built changed the world. The question now is whether what we've built can continue to matter. I've watched parents ask ChatGPT questions at the dinner table instead of looking up Wikipedia. I've watched students use AI tutors that draw on our content but never send them our way. I've watched the infrastructure of knowledge shift underneath us while we debated process improvements. We have something precious: a proven system for establishing truth at scale, built by millions of people over a quarter century. We have something rare: a global community that believes knowledge and information should be free. We have something valuable: a brand that still, for now, means "trustworthy." What we're running out of is time. To every Board member, every staffer, every Wikimedian reading this: the numbers don't lie. The internet added 2.7 billion users since 2016. Our readership declined. That's not a plateau. That's being left behind. And the forces reshaping knowledge distribution aren't going to wait for us to finish deliberating. This is not an attack on what we've built. It's a call to defend it by changing it. The Britannica didn't fail because its content was bad. It failed because it couldn't adapt to how knowledge distribution was evolving. We have an opportunity they didn't: we can see the shift happening. We can still act. What does success look like? Not preserving what we have. Success is the courage to reopen every discussion, to critically reconsider everything we've been for 25 years that isn't enshrined in the mission itself. The mission is sacred. Everything else—our structures, our revenue models, our relationship with technology, our governance—is negotiable. It has to be. Happy birthday, Wikipedia. You've earned the celebration. Now let's earn the next 25 years. – Christophe
Appendix A: the Data[edit]All data comes from public sources: Wikimedia Foundation statistics (stats.wikimedia.org), ITU Facts and Figures 2025, and Our World in Data. The methodology and complete datasets are available on request. Key Metrics summary[edit]
The market share collapse[edit]
Methodological notes[edit]
Causation vs. correlation: This analysis identifies trends and divergences but does not prove causation. Multiple factors contribute to these patterns, including platform competition, mobile shifts, search engine changes, and AI integration. Notes and references[edit]
External sources[edit]Primary Data Sources: AI & Bot Traffic: Editor Demographics: Academic Research: Strategy & Governance: Financials:
Kaliper1 The WMF wants to buy you books!Sources are the most important part of writing quality content. But how do we get them? While it's hard to overstate the resources available through The Wikipedia Library, it doesn't have everything. Some editors have in-person access to great local or university libraries, and are able to share resources with volunteers at the resource exchange. But the resource exchange can be limited, especially with newer resources; due to copyright restrictions, full books cannot be shared, and often that's what is needed. The resource support pilot (WP:RESUP) aims to fill this gap by purchasing resources directly for content editors. The pilot's been open since June, and so far has fulfilled about 20 requests. What resources qualify?[edit]We can support resources that will be used for creating content on Wikipedia, and which we are able to purchase and get to you. While this is mostly books, we can cover other types of resources too. For specifics, see the relevant FAQ section. Before making a request, please attempt to get access from your local library and The Wikipedia Library. If your request is in scope of the resource exchange, an unsuccessful request there is required before we can purchase the resource. Which editors can make requests?[edit]Any extended confirmed user – like you! – can make a request. Again, please double-check that the source is not available using the Wikipedia Library or at your local library before filing a request. Some Wikimedia movement affiliates have similar programs. If your local affiliate has such a program, we ask that you use their program instead. How do I make a request?[edit]Use the form on Wikipedia:Resource support pilot to create a page for your resource request and transclude it on Wikipedia:Resource support pilot/Requests. Please let RAdimer-WMF know if you have any questions. Alternatives[edit]
Kaliper1 Time for a health check: the Vital Signs 2026 campaignIt's time for a health check. And no, I don't mean the health check your healthcare professional might usually offer to you. Let's rather check our most important health articles and ensure they are fit for purpose in 2026. This is exactly the main goal of the Vital Signs 2026 campaign. Within the WikiProject Medicine, we've identified our 101 most important articles: the campaign is trying to make sure that all of these meet the B-class criteria by the end of the year. At the moment, there are "only" 15 C-class articles in this list. But medical content often tends to get out of date quickly as science progresses, so it's likely that most articles need at least a bit of TLC, including those listed as good articles (27%) and featured articles (10%). How to help, and why you don't need to be an expert[edit]Editing medical content is not as difficult as you'd think. Biomedical content has its own sourcing guidelines. In a nutshell, most sources need to be secondary sources published in the last five years. This can be (international) clinical guidelines, review papers, WHO reports, book chapters, or information pages from trusted organisations such as the NHS. On the talk page of each medical article, there is a link to PubMed to find review papers that meet these requirements. Because the source requirements are stricter, there are usually fewer sources to read before you can jump in. Most of these sources are written in plain(-ish) English, so you do not need a medical degree to understand them. A subset of review papers is written in highly technical language, but you can set these sources aside at first. When you edit medical articles, you initially may want to skip the causes and mechanism (pathophysiology) section of articles, as they are more difficult to grasp, especially for beginners. On the other hand, the epidemiology section can be a good one to start with. Diagnosis and treatment are usually covered well in clinical guidelines, so they provide another good place to start editing medical content. In terms of campaign tasks, there are big ones and small ones. A few to get started:
If you have more time, why not adopt one of the articles? Read it top-to-bottom, update key facts and statistics and remove the overly technical details not relevant to our likely readers. The importance of editing important articles[edit]In the age of AI, Wikipedia is losing pageviews, partially because Google is pushing its inaccurate AI into search. And maybe that's not (entirely) a bad thing, given the state of some of our medical articles at the moment. Before this campaign started, we scared readers by providing them with cancer survival data more than ten years out of date, and the management section in asthma was even more dated. Google rightly punishes websites for being out of date, but these big articles are the ones that are most likely to attract readers in high numbers: therefore, only if we have more readers, we can also have more folks falling into our "rabbit hole" and joining the community. We can make a virtuous cycle out of a vicious one.  Pageviews on (top-importance) medical articles are declining. This is partially due to datedness, but also due to a 2018–2020 change in how Google ranks medical sites for authority (Google seems to downrank Wikipedia's medical content more [1][2]), and recently, as we compete against AIs.
And there's more to do. We have articles like Borderline personality disorder, where AI misuse is suspected and requires cleaning; Breast cancer, which is using 2013 sourcing to question the usefulness of screening campaigns for the disease; our article on obesity does not even mention GLP-1 agonists – like Ozempic – in the lead yet, and has a statistics section (in addition to a more standard epidemiology section) dedicated only to the US. The criteria for an article being B-class are:
Editing medical content is impactful. Despite the post-pandemic drop in pageviews, our top-importance medical articles were read by 164,000 people every day last year, amounting to 60 million views in total. And most importantly, people often read these articles when they are going through illness themselves, or when their loved ones are. After every medical GA or FA I’ve written, people have written to tell me how the updated content helped them, something you don't get in many other areas of Wikipedia. Will you join us checking Vital Signs?
Kaliper1 Fake Acting President Trump and a Wikipedia infobox A fake Wikipedia infobox as published by U.S. President Donald Trump on Truth Social, January 11, 2026.
A true fake[edit]An article in The Independent, a British newspaper, sports the headline "Trump shares fake Wikipedia page calling himself 'Acting President' of Venezuela" (archive). To explain: President Donald Trump, who is, at least, by all accounts President of the United States, posted on his Truth Social media account that he is Acting President of Venezuela. This false announcement is apparently a snub to Delcy Rodriguez, the real fake Acting President of Venezuela. Rodriguez was the Vice-President of Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro who was removed from office by U.S. troops in a January 3 strike against against Venezuela. Rodriguez was then sworn in as Acting President. TIME, USA Today, Euronews, the Times of India, Latin Times, China's Global Times and scores of other news outlets covered the story. Almost all noted the similarity of the post to something they've seen on Wikipedia, often calling it "a page". Some viewed the post as "sardonic" or "satire". Some just seemed awe-struck and let their jaws hang. This is not the first time Trump has caused a brouhaha by posting on Truth Social. In April during the official mourning period for Pope Francis, Trump reposted a picture of himself in papal vestments. In October he posted an AI video of Trump himself dressed as a king, flying a jet fighter and dropping fecal matter on US protestors. – S "I really don’t like bullies"[edit]Katherine Maher, former CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation and current CEO of NPR, hasn't "brought a tote bag to a knife fight" according to The New York Times. Indeed, the Times calls her "aggressive, refusing to compromise with Congress" while handling multiple crises. She can be "unyielding". Soon after her 2024 appointment, the right-wing press had called for her ouster after publicizing some of her old tweets. Maher responded that they were her personal tweets from long before she joined NPR and told the Times that "I really don’t like bullies". See prior Signpost coverage Being CEO of NPR is a difficult job: she is the seventh CEO in the last fifteen years. Furthermore, the last year has been exceptionally difficult with $500 million in funding cut by the federal government, and congressional hearings titled "Anti-American Airwaves: Accountability for the Heads of NPR and PBS." Under Maher NPR even sued the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. She will soon be taking maternity leave. Congratulations, Katherine and keep up the good work. – S "I have been officially banned by the WMF"[edit] When people don't like things, sometimes they write stuff. D.F. Lovett on his substack Edit History says he has been contacted by Ovsk Mendov who was "officially banned by the WMF". Mendov tells Lovett that he "recently leaked a massive quantity of sensitive information from WMF wikis and [is] about to release it." If true, this could be a really juicy story, but more likely will lead to him releasing hundreds of pages of the most boring stuff you've ever read. Messages from ticked-off blocked sockpuppets are like that. This story does have a couple of interesting sections however: The unlinked letter from the Foundation's Trust and Safety team blocking Mendov does look authentic and could only have been released, according to WMF rules, by the blocked editor. The other interesting section discusses two websites, Wikipediocracy and "Wikipedia Sucks", which are critical of Wikipedia. Lovett suggests that Wikipediocracy has become too tame and has too many members from Arbcom editing the site to really stay a Wikipedia criticism site. But (again according to him), Wikipedia Sucks has kept the faith and is still dishing out the real stuff, not that I recommend it. – S To ERR is human[edit] Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (shown in populated area before 2007 relocation to a cemetery), now a symbol of Estonian–Russian Federation tensions, depicted a Red Army soldier liberating Tallinn Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR), Estonia's government supported public broadcasting organization, states that "Estonian volunteers [are] struggling to protect [English] Wikipedia from Russian propaganda". It's a bit more complicated than that, but ERR's source, the newspaper Digigeenius (in Estonian and partially paywalled) wrote three articles on the topic over eight days in some detail. At first glance, the Estonian position looks weak: The Estonian editors on English Wikipedia have been trying to maintain an earlier status quo that listed the birthplace of Estonians born from 1940-1991 as simply Estonia, but other, presumably Russian, editors were changing this to Estonian SSR, USSR. From 1940-1941 and 1944-1991 births in the area of Estonia were recorded by the government of the Estonian SSR. From 1942-1944 the area was controlled by the Nazi German army. The 1940 Soviet takeover followed quickly after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when the Soviets and Nazis secretly divided eastern Europe into Soviet and German spheres of influence. Estonia's argument is that the occupation and annexation of Estonia was illegal and it was never agreed to by the Estonians. ERR quotes Ronald Liive from Digigeenius who calls the birthplace campaign "mass manipulation on an industrial scale." (Summaries of ERR text added by The Signpost in parentheses)
Although Wikipedia favors simple facts over ideological interpretations, considering this, the case for the Estonians now looks much stronger. Several RfCs at the Manual of style on how to record the birthplaces were closed as "no consensus" but several admins interpret that as meaning Estonia SSR should be used. The obvious compromise of listing the birthplaces as "Estonia under Russian occupation" was suggested but ignored by both sides. One additional oddity: How does one person edit for over 20 hours straight? User:Glebushko0703, who signs his posts on en.Wiki with Gigman, added many Estonian SSR edits and did indeed put in several 20+ hour days making manual edits, on several topics (not all on Estonian biographies) and also just copying and pasting Estonian SSR, USSR into biographies. He is also an editor of the Russian Wikipedia, with 210 edits, where he edits about the days of the calendar year and sites around Moscow. On his en.Wiki user page he accuses Robert Treufeldt, a board member of the Estonian Wikimedia Chapter, of insulting him on Estonian national television. – S Wikipedia's governance logic examined[edit]_(cropped).jpg) Are Wikipedia's readers treated like a horse with blinders? A countercurrents contributor thinks so. "Provisional Bondi Truths: Containment, Power, and the Struggle to Name Palestine on Wikipedia", published at countercurrents.org, looks at a number of issues that came up at the English Wikipedia in 2025. Among several intriguing insights about Wikipedia are these:
and
– B In brief[edit]Who's a Jolly Good Fellow?
Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.
Kaliper1 The inbox behind Wikipedia The unofficial logo of VRT Even among experienced Wikipedia editors, including many who have been active for a decade or more, there is often little understanding of what the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) actually does. Outside of some knowledge that VRT handles copyright verification or permissions, most long-time editors are unaware of the wide range of emails VRT handles daily and the complex role it plays as the public-facing interface of Wikipedia. What is the most visible public-facing function of almost any organisation? Customer service. It is therefore reasonable to ask how this works for one of the most visited websites in the world. Wikipedia does not have a call centre, a chatbot, or a ticketing system in the conventional sense. Instead, it has a few email inboxes. These inboxes are handled by VRT, formerly known as OTRS. VRT is a group of trusted Wikimedia volunteers who respond to emails sent to various Wikimedia project addresses, including Wikipedia. For anyone looking for a direct way to contact Wikipedia, the English-language email address info-en Most editors encounter VRT indirectly in a few familiar contexts. These include copyright permission emails when authorship or ownership of a work is unclear, for example when a text or image has been published elsewhere before being uploaded to Wikimedia. Another common case is identity verification, where a user's chosen username corresponds to the name of a notable person and additional confirmation is required. Those are only a small subset of what arrives in the VRT queues each day. What kinds of emails does VRT receive[edit]VRT handles a wide range of incoming messages, many of them from people with little or no prior understanding of how Wikipedia works. Common categories include:
The volume of correspondence is substantial. For the English-language inboxes alone, VRT volunteers reply to hundreds of emails each week, if not on a daily basis.  During 2025, a noticeable amount of emails has been responded to regarding content updates in our articles about Gaza genocide and Zionism Over the past year, VRT has seen an increase in privacy-related requests from article subjects as well as complaints about perceived political bias. Many correspondents allege an anti-Israel stance or a left-leaning perspective (their words) in certain articles. These complaints often focus on how particular events, groups, or individuals are described, the terminology used, or which sources are cited. Complainants may request changes to wording, demand removal of certain statements, or question why contrary viewpoints are presented. VRT volunteers respond by explaining Wikipedia's core content policies, the need for neutral presentation, and the public processes through which editorial disagreements are addressed. Multiple rounds of correspondence are sometimes necessary to clarify why articles are worded as they are and why certain editorial decisions reflect community consensus rather than individual viewpoints. In practice, it is very rare that senders are satisfied with the outcome. Many simply want to vent their frustration or air their grievances, using email as the only way they know to express their dissatisfaction with how Wikipedia presents certain topics. One reason so many correspondents turn to VRT is that Wikipedia's talk page system is not always prominent or easy to navigate. Talk pages are often not closely monitored or responded to by enough editors, and their structure can be confusing, especially for people unfamiliar with the site. Article subjects who wish to raise concerns may find themselves left with little option but to email VRT or attempt to locate a relevant noticeboard through trial and error. Both of these on-wiki forums are public, which can discourage participation, and the overall forum structure can feel complex, unfamiliar and intimidating to non-editors. VRT volunteers respond to all such messages, sometimes engaging in multiple rounds of correspondence. Responses often involve detailed explanations of Wikipedia policies, clarifications on why an article is worded as it is, and guidance on public processes such as edit requests, Requests for Comment or dispute resolution. Much of this correspondence does not fit neatly into any on-wiki process, and senders may not even be editors. This makes VRT's role one of education, explanation, and setting expectations, rather than direct editorial intervention. The limits of VRT[edit]A recurring challenge for VRT volunteers is that email is often the wrong venue for resolving content disputes. Volunteers frequently explain that editorial disagreements should be raised on article talk pages, relevant noticeboards, or through established dispute resolution processes. In practice, many correspondents never follow those suggestions. Instead, they continue the discussion by email, expecting personalised explanations of why an article is written as it is, why certain sources are acceptable and others are not, or why Wikipedia cannot simply make a requested change. All correspondence handled by VRT is covered by a confidentiality agreement and it is therefore not permitted for volunteers to disclose the content of emails on-wiki or elsewhere. This can create challenges when article subjects request changes or deletions, as VRT cannot discuss the specifics of individual cases publicly. As a result, much of VRT's work is invisible even to seasoned editors. VRT volunteers also receive forwarded correspondence from the Wikimedia Foundation. A few times per month, teams such as Legal, Trust and Safety, or Communications pass along emails from article subjects who are demanding changes, deletions, or corrections. These messages often come with heightened expectations of authority and urgency. The Foundation is aware of VRT's limits and does not expect volunteers to take official action. Instead, they ask VRT to review the issue and determine whether the volunteer community wishes to engage with the matter. It is important to be clear about what VRT is not. VRT has no editorial power. These volunteers do not decide article content, override community consensus, or act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. Every reply includes a disclaimer stating that the response is not official Foundation correspondence. Nevertheless, for many people outside the Wikimedia movement, a reply from a Wikipedia email address feels official. VRT volunteers are, in effect, the human interface between Wikipedia and the general public. They are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact a concerned reader, article subject, or aggrieved contributor will ever have with the Wikimedia community. In that sense, VRT functions much like customer service, not by fixing everything directly, but by explaining, redirecting, and setting expectations. It is quiet, mostly invisible work, but it plays a significant role in how Wikipedia is perceived by the world beyond its edit buttons and talk pages. Getting involved with VRT[edit]I personally recommend that any experienced Wikipedia editor in good standing take a moment to read the Volunteer Response Team recruiting page on Meta-Wiki. In my experience, serving on VRT provides a unique perspective on how Wikipedia interacts with the public and the Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers are not selected by the community at large; instead, they are chosen by VRTS administrators, who themselves are appointed by cooptation or the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kaliper1 Art museums on Wikidata; comparing three comparisons of Grokipedia and Wikipedia
 A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter. Benchmarking Data Practices of Art Museums in Wikidata[edit]
.png) From the paper: "Metadata footprint of licences across institutional collections. This chart illustrates the varying proportions of artworks with documented licence or copyright status within each museum’s Wikidata records."
This discussion paper[1] is part of a "Special Collection" of the Journal of Open Humanities Data (JOHD), titled "Wikidata Across the Humanities: Datasets, Methodologies, Reuse", which focuses on Wikidata as both a tool and an object of academic research. The paper looks at the adoption of key open data best practices, focusing on art museums in Wikidata. The work is outlined in three steps: i) selection of a sample of data repositories of such museums in Wikidata; ii) definition of open data compliance criteria; and iii) reporting the results. For the selection of repositories, art museums (using the item “art museum”, Q207694 as the reference point) with at least 5,000 records in Wikidata were chosen, and the sample was further limited to the ten museums with the most records in Wikidata. When it comes to defining the compliance criteria, the authors say:
Then, they define a set of data quality criteria, as described below:
The results are then reported and discussed: ten preselected institutions have been assessed based on the above criteria. A full table of results with detailed scores can be found in the paper, with a brief spoiler alert for the less patient readers:
When discussing the results, the authors clearly and transparently outline the limitations of their work, in scope and coverage, and point out additional topics to consider as extension of this work. Interestingly, they mention two criteria (the provision of machine-readable metadata and clear licensing information) which do not form part of the assessment in the paper. This is because analysis shows these to be "not binary properties of an institution, but rather emergent characteristics of digital collections", which is followed by a proposal to reframe them as quantifiable "metadata footprints". The paper also provides an interesting analysis using the copyright status property on Wikidata, with a chart clearly illustrating artwork with documented license or copyright status within each museum's Wikidata records (see above). In summary, this work provides a really useful benchmark of practices for museums willing to start using Wikidata to enrich and reuse their digital collections. Speaking from an affiliate perspective, such work is a valuable guide for speaking with GLAM institutions, presenting them with good practice examples and suggesting space for improvement. A final note from the authors highlights another important use for such research:
Comparing comparisons of Grokipedia vs. Wikipedia by three different research teams[edit]
On October 27, Elon Musk's company xAI launched Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia designed to rival Wikipedia by addressing its alleged biases, errors, and ideological slants. As summarized in recent Signpost issues (see here, here and here), it immediately attracted a lot of commentary by journalists and pundits, many of them highlighting examples of Grokipedia's own apparent right-wing biases. At the same time, various academic researchers embarked on more systematic analyses of Grokipedia, resulting in several preprint publications already. These include at least three comparisons with Wikipedia, making this an interesting experiment showing how different research teams may tackle the same kind of questions:
A fourth analysis, by Włodzimierz Lewoniewski of Poznań University of Economics and Business (author of various other academic publications about Wikipedia), was provided in form of a blog post and video[5] that compare Grokipedia with Wikipedia editions in 16 languages, by listing the number of articles each encyclopedia has in a number of different topics. Data[edit]As promised in its title ("A comprehensive analysis of Grokipedia"), the Cornell team's paper is based on the largest Grokipedia dataset:
The Dublin team scraped a partial sample:
The Davis team contented itself with the smallest dataset:
Unlike the other two teams, the Cornell researchers also recorded whether each Grokipedia article was marked as "adapted from Wikipedia" under its CC license:
(They note that "CC-licensed articles on Grokipedia contain a public log of edits that Grok made to the source Wikipedia article, and non-CC-licensed articles do not. We were unable to scrape this information on our first attempt".) The Cornell team is the only one to have released its data, in form of a 1.72 GB dataset on Hugging Face. (The Davis researchers state that theirs is available upon request.) All three were drawing from the initial "0.1" version of Grokipedia, which around November 20 was replaced by version "0.2" whose content appears to differ substantially (it now also accepts proposed edits from users). Therefore the Cornell dataset might already be seen as an important historical artefact (although it only provides the former Grokipedia articles in a somewhat mangled "chunked" form, see below; other scrapes have been made available by others, and the Archive Team has begun preserving much or all of the site on the Wayback Machine). Lewoniewski observes that as of around November 1:
Article length and citation density[edit]The Dublin team found that:
The Davis team similarly observed that:
The Cornell paper found that:
Source analysis: Reliability, political leanings, and "institutional nature"[edit]The Dublin team evaluated the political leanings of the cited sources using the "News Media Bias and Factuality" dataset[supp 2]. As summarized in a December 8 Twitter thread by one of the authors:
(The paper mentions that citations were rated "only when a numeric bias was available for a domain or its brand variant (e.g., bbc.com/bbc.co.uk)" in the "News Media Bias and Factuality" dataset. Unfortunately it doesn't disclose how many citations this excluded. As found by the Davis authors - see below - both encyclopedias include a large share of non-news citations.) The Cornell researchers first evaluated the reliability of both encyclopedias' citations according to the ratings in Wikipedia's own "perennial sources list":
Of course, it is unsurprising that Wikipedia adheres better to its own sourcing standards than other encyclopedias. As a result, the Cornell authors repeated this analysis with a dataset of quality ratings of news website domains from an academic paper (Lin et al.), with results that are "roughly in line with those that relied on English Wikipedia’s Perennial Source list":
The Cornell authors cautioned that:
In contrast, the Davis paper's two research questions about sourcing differences between Grokipedia and Wikipedia eschewed a direct analysis of the quality or political orientation of the citations:
Rather than relying on external datasets like the Dublin and Cornell authors (and thus having to limit their conclusions to only those citations covered by these datasets), the Davis authors were able to classify every citation in their dataset. This was achieved by "develop[ing] and appl[ying] a systematic content coding scheme based on [their own] 'Citation Content Coding Manual' [...] to assign each unique citation to exactly one of eight mutually exclusive categories", such as "Academic & Scholarly", "Government & Official", or "User-Generated (UGC)". This scheme was then automatically applied (by Gemini Flash 2.5, aided by an extensive coding manual and vetted against a manual classification of a small sample) to classify the roughly 50,000 citations in the entire dataset. Regarding RQ2, the results revealed
To investigate RQ3, the Davis authors manually classified the 72 articles in their corpus by topic area, finding that:
Similarity of content between Grokipedia and Wikipedia[edit]The Cornell and Dublin teams also ventured beyond citations to directly compare the text of both encyclopedias. Both first split each article into smaller text segments and then applied quantitative text similarity measures to these. Specifically, the Cornell researchers:
This method seems a bit crude, as the resulting chunks (arbitrary example) cut across sentences and paragraphs, i.e. contain lots of mangled sentences. In contrast, the Dublin team used an established NLP tool to split the text while keeping these intact:
The Cornell team then:
In contrast, the Dublin team employed a whole "suite of eight similarity measures grouped into four conceptual domains": lexical similarity (e.g. "cosine similarity of TF–IDF vectors"), n-gram overlap, semantic similarity (including based on LLM embeddings, similar to the Cornell team, albeit using older and smaller models), and stylistic similarity (aggregating differences in various simpler metrics such as sentence lengths and readability scores). As one would expect, the Cornell team found that Grokipedia's "adapted from Wikipedia" articles were more similar to their Wikipedia counterpart than those without that notice:
Interestingly, their chunk similarity analysis also seems to function as a plagiarism detector of sorts:
The Cornell authors leave it open how frequent such unattributed matching sentences are overall. The Dublin researchers ultimately combined their eight different article similarity metrics into a single one (using principal components analysis), finding that its
Presumably these two groups correspond to the CC-licensed and non-CC-licensed Grokipedia articles, but the paper did not consider this property (in contrast to the Cornell researchers). Similar to the Davis researchers, the Dublin paper also classified articles by topic, however (due to their much larger sample) using an automated method (relying on GPT-5). This enabled them to conclude that
2026 Wikimedia Research Fund announced[edit]The Wikimedia Foundation's Research department announced the launch of the 2026 Wikimedia Research Fund". It funds
Letters of intent for research proposals (Type 1 and 2) are due by January 16, 2026, and full proposals for all three types on April 3, 2026. See also our related earlier coverage:
Briefly[edit]
Other recent publications[edit]Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome. "Investigating the evolution of Wikipedia articles through underlying triggering networks"[edit]This paper in the Journal of Information Science (excerpts) considers networks that have "factoids" as nodes, and associations between them as edges, and finds e.g. that "the inclusion of one factoid [on Wikipedia] leads to the inclusion of many other factoids". From the abstract:[6]
From the "Discussion" section:
See also our coverage of a related earlier publication by the same authors at OpenSym 2018: "'Triggering' article contributions by adding factoids" "Throw Your Hat in the Ring (of Wikipedia): Exploring Urban-Rural Disparities in Local Politicians' Information Supply"[edit]From the abstract:[7]
"Wikipedia Citations: Reproducible Citation Extraction from Multilingual Wikipedia"[edit]From the abstract:[8]
"Wiki Loves iNaturalist: How Wikimedians Integrate iNaturalist Content on Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons"[edit] From this conference abstract:[9]
References[edit]
Kaliper1 Tonight I'm gonna rock you tonight
While the 2025 Annual Report sees some delays, here are the last three weeks of the year. If the sky that we look upon should tumble and fall (December 14 to 20)[edit]
I have only one burning desire, let me stand next to your fire (December 21 to 27)[edit]
And gold is the reason for the wars we wage (December 28 to January 3)[edit]
Exclusions[edit]
Most edited articles[edit]For the December 4 – January 4 period, per this database report.
Kaliper1 Oh come on man._(14771193731).jpg) "Dude, seriously? Another hat? What does this one even do? 'Pending changes reviewer'? What the fuck are you ever going to use that for?" If articles have been updated, you may need to .
|
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=avatar}
_-_54213544341.jpg)
_-_LABW_-_Staatsarchiv_Freiburg_W_134_Nr._036134a.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Moh. Ilyas family line
[edit]You might have seen the infobox. Yes, you read it right. I am a direct descendant of Prince Diponegoro. My branch traces through the Sokaraja line of the Naqshbandiyah Khalidiyah Mujaddadiyah: from KH Ali Dipowongso in Makkah to KH Moh Ilyas in Sokaraja, then through the successive caretakers of that pesantren tradition. The line is named as the Moh. Ilyas great family line. The chain begins with Kanjeng Sultan Hamengkubuwono III of the Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat, followed by his son and heir in struggle, Bendara Pangeran Harya (BPA) Prince Diponegoro, the National Hero.
| Ancestors of Kaliper1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Study with care. Work with integrity. If I succeed, it will not be because of who my ancestors were, but because I tried to live up to what they taught.
References
[edit]- ^ "Perempuan-perempuan di Hidup Pangeran Diponegoro". Kumparan.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2020-03-21.
- ^ Fathuddin, Agus. "KHM Ilyas, Ulama Trah Pangeran Diponegoro - Suara Merdeka - Halaman 2". KHM Ilyas, Ulama Trah Pangeran Diponegoro - Suara Merdeka - Halaman 2 (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2025-08-26.
- ^ "Mengenal Syekh Abdul Malik Purwokerto; Mursyid yang Dicintai Para Habaib". JATMAN Online. 15 September 2023. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Pratama, Lafiana Ferika (10 December 2022). "Kiai Haji Raden Mas Muhammad Ilyas, Sang Penyebar Tarekat Naqsyabandiyah". kumparan (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2025-08-26.
- ^ Azmi Umar Faiq, NIM : 16120090 (2023-03-31). PENGEMBANGAN TAREKAT NAQSYABANDIYAH KHALIDIYAH DI SOKARAJA, BANYUMAS, JAWA TENGAH PERIODE KIAI ABDUSALAM 1968-2014 M. (skripsi thesis) (in Indonesian). UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.
{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Thariqah Naqsyabandiyah al Khalidiyah: Mursyid, Guru & Silsilah". NU Cilacap Online. 27 August 2022. Retrieved 11 August 2025.
- ^ "Tujuan Mengamalkan Tarekat Menurut KH Ir Raden Toriq Arif Ghuzdewan". NU Cilacap Online (in Indonesian). 2023-05-12. Retrieved 2025-08-26.
- ^ "Tariqah Naqshbandiyah: Sejarah, Ajaran, dan Penyebaran" (in Indonesian). 2025-02-08. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
- ^ Putra, Apria (2020-03-13). "Tarekat Naqsyabandiyah Al-Khalidiyah : Mengenal Ajaran Tarekat yang Berasal dari Abu Bakar | Bincang Syariah". BincangSyariah | Portal Islam Rahmatan lil Alamin (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2025-09-01.
Commons Page. Useful Pages: Cheatsheet