The inbox behind Wikipedia: What the Volunteer Response Team actually does!
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
wikimedia.org is listed prominently on both Wikipedia:Contact us (accessible from the left-hand menu in the classic Vector skin and the hamburger menu in the post-2022 Vector update) and the Wikimedia Foundation contact page. While most editors will never interact directly with VRT, nearly everyone has at some point told another user to "email VRT".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.jpg){kind=small}
Discuss this story
There is still a lack of clarity about what oversight, if any, of VRT (formerly OTRS) exists.
I have been trying to get full and clear answers to these ten questions:
for six (yes, 6) years.
I have even been told that OTRS/ VRT's confidentiality agreement means they could not be answered!
I have taken the matter to "ask the board" sessions, and asked Maryana Iskander to intervene. Last I heard, WMF (who say the matter is outside their remit, and is for the community) said they had asked VRT admins to respond. That was in June 2025, but we remain none the wiser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Much of VRT's internal work is necessarily private due to the sensitive nature of the emails and all agents sign a confidentiality agreement. This limits what can be shared publicly (including what is discussed or governed internally), but here's what is available.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]