Can We Really Trust Wikipedia In 2025?

Wikipedia is everywhere. It dominates Google results, pops up in YouTube info boxes, and is baked into AI systems like ChatGPT and Google’s AI Overviews. It’s one of the most used sites on the internet. Most of us use it daily without even thinking. But here’s the real question - should we?

I’ve been digging into Wikipedia for a while, and honestly, the more I looked, the more concerned I got. On the surface, it’s a brilliant idea: free access to knowledge, edited by the people, for the people. In reality? It’s riddled with bias, run by unpaid volunteers rather than experts, and plagued with financial and credibility questions.

Wikipedia’s Big Promise (and Its Big Weakness)

Launched in 2001, Wikipedia now has over 64 million articles across hundreds of languages. Around 118,000 active editors keep it alive, most unpaid hobbyists rather than professionals. That’s fewer than 60 editors per 1,000 articles - an impossible ratio. No wonder so much content ends up outdated or inconsistent.

They operate under five “pillars” - neutrality, free content, civility, no firm rules. The one that really sticks out to me is the “no firm rules” policy. In theory, it gives flexibility. In practice, it opens the door to bias and personal agendas. With no experts overseeing it, neutrality becomes whatever the loudest editors decide.

Neutrality or Narrative?

Wikipedia officially insists on a “neutral point of view.” But studies have shown its content leans politically left, and editor demographics skew heavily white, male, and Western. Even co-founder Larry Sanger has called it an “encyclopaedia of opinion” rather than truth.

The reality: a handful of super-editors and organised groups often control narratives, sometimes even blocking individuals from editing their own biographies. That’s not neutrality - that’s gatekeeping.

When Hoaxes Pass as Truth

Because anyone can edit, Wikipedia is wide open to hoaxes. And they’ve slipped through - from fake wars and invented inventors to false obituaries that fooled major newspapers. Some hoaxes lasted years. Imagine what happens when those errors feed into AI training data. You end up with misinformation being repeated across the web as if it’s fact. We’re already seeing “reference loops,” where Wikipedia is the source and the citation.

Follow the Money

Here’s what really raised my eyebrows: despite claiming to run on donations just to “keep the lights on,” the Wikimedia Foundation is thriving financially. In 2024, it pulled in $185m, with net assets of $271m. Yet we still see those guilt-trip banners every time we visit: “If everyone reading this gave £2…”

Even ex-staff have questioned how misleading those appeals are. It’s hard to square urgent pleas with a non-profit sitting on hundreds of millions in reserves.

AI’s Favourite Source

Wikipedia isn’t just a website anymore - it’s the backbone of AI training. OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta… all admit they use it. In April 2025, Wikimedia even partnered with Kaggle to release a structured dataset specifically for AI developers. That means Wikipedia errors now risk being amplified at scale, baked into systems millions rely on.

What Needs to Change

If Wikipedia wants to stay relevant and credible, it needs serious reform:

• Diversify contributors: more gender variation, more global voices, more balance.

• Bring in experts: transparency on credentials, EEAT-style verification.

• Improve transparency: stop alarmist fundraising while sitting on huge reserves.

• Smarter tech: use AI to flag weak spots, surface bias, and explain edits.

• Richer content: more images, timelines, and media so it isn’t left behind by AI search and platforms like Perplexity.

  
  

My Take

In principle, Wikipedia is a great idea. In practice, it’s a mess. The lack of diversity, unchecked bias, hoaxes, and misleading financial appeals all add up to something deeply flawed. And yet - because Google, YouTube, and AI models give it priority - it still dominates our information ecosystem.

That’s what really bothers me. Wikipedia isn’t just another website. It’s a cornerstone of search. If we can’t fully trust it, then how can we trust the systems built on top of it? Unless Wikipedia radically changes, I can’t see it surviving in a search landscape that increasingly demands clear, expert-led, trustworthy information.

Trust isn’t optional anymore. And right now, Wikipedia just doesn’t earn it.