The Signpost

File:Antakya Archaeological Museum Evil Eye Mosaic in 2019 09.jpg
Artist unknown / photo dosseman
cc-by-sa-4.0
100
500
In the media

Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bri, Smallbones
This last month has seen negative media stories about Wikipedia related to the US Congressional investigation of Wikipedia, Elon Musk, Israel-Palestine, but mostly to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and its aftermath.

Degrees of bad

From bad to worse

Worse than worse

Even worse

Note: After the publication of the issue, this section was removed from the on-wiki version of the Signpost by a member of the English Wikipedia Oversight/Suppression team; a subsequent Breitbart article was written about the suppression of the Signpost article content itself. After various discussions, I have chosen to reinstate the section, attempting to address aforesaid concerns.
Jacob P. X. Gotts, Editor in Chief

A generous explanation is that the Wikipedia system is so hobbled by internal dysfunction that, even with the best of intentions, it can no longer maintain even basic editorial integrity on the most contentious of topics. At worst, Wikipedia has been captured by ideological factions who know how to game the system and weaponize its rules.

This is how Ashley Rindsberg, writing in Tablet, characterizes what he says is a struggle to seize control of the article Zionism.
The article accuses a group of "radical editors" of "redefining Zionism as racism on the world's leading online encyclopedia", and explicitly links forthcoming Congressional inquiry to the lede paragraph of the article Zionism and Arbcom's 2024 PIA decision, which Rindsberg says locked in the current wording related to Rindsberg's October 2024 reporting on Wikipedia (see previous Signpost coverage). National Review has an article commenting on Rindsberg's article, written by online editor Philip Klein. – B

Another point of view

One billion US dollars per year

Robin Berjon in Tech Policy Press tells us How Wikipedia Can Save the Internet With Advertising.

Berjon believes that the entire internet is in trouble, that the current commercialized model of the internet puts the power and money, as well as private personal data into the hands of a "broligarchy" and the advertisers they serve. Authoritarian governments have power as well. But none of these players have an incentive to represent the public interest and the information that the public consumes is distorted.

He starts with the premise that

"There is ample evidence around the world that media organizations, when they choose to, have been able to develop imperfect, occasionally failing, but nevertheless viable institutional arrangements that have shielded newsrooms from advertising money across more decades than we've had digital computers."

It's not just Wikipedia he wants to save, but local, national, and international newspapers, and digital media. The whole internet.

Berjon calculates that advertising on Wikipedia could bring in one billion US dollars per year in revenue. What could we do with a billion dollars each year? This reporter first would stash some in the Wikimedia Endowment and then get a larger and more powerful legal team to protect us from autocratic governments in almost any crisis. Then better software and faster servers. But other Wikipedians will have different priorities. The possibilities are nearly endless. Please share your priorities for a billion dollars per year in the comments section below.

But this is where many of us will get confused by Berjon's argument, or simply disagree with his priorities. Some Wikipedians won't trust the WMF with more money, some won't want the WMF to, even indirectly, subsidize other media outlets, or to get more involved with politics.

Berjon's vision does not offer a detailed roadmap to where he wants us to go. There are implicit subsidies to digital media and not-for-profit organizations, including a "Public Interest Internet Fund". Mostly though, he just wants us to show a significant part of the internet how to use advertising as a non-damaging source of funds:

"The Wikipedia community is in a position to create substantive power for the public interest internet at a time when it is being pushed to the edge of extinction. We will not survive without the funds to take a stand. We will not survive without a principled advertising infrastructure that can sustain usable, viable public interest digital services. Perhaps, if we can stop retreating to self-defeating principles with no grounding in empirical reality, we can try something different: We can choose to win."

S

In brief

Perhaps Wikipedia's evil twin has a goatee? But unlike Vulcans, it is not "incapable of lying".



Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit our next edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.


Signpost
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Grok

The link should be Grok (chatbot), right? NaBUru38 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! (next time feel free to go ahead and correct it directly - as mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About, straightforward post-publication fixes that don't change the meaning of a Signpost story are welcome)
Apropos, it's a bit unclear to me what "having his AI program Grok create stories of its own for xAI" means in this item (unfortunately it's no longer possible to find out who wrote that bit, otherwise I would ping them).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0