Why Wikipedia still won't let AI write articles, says CEO Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia founder explains why donor funding, not AI, keeps the encyclopedia trustworthy
Nearly 25 years after launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales remains unmoved by the pressure to let artificial intelligence write the encyclopedia's articles. In a wide-ranging interview, Wales laid out why Wikipedia continues to reject ad revenue, resist AI authorship, and rely instead on a donor base averaging roughly $10 a gift.
Wales points to hallucination as the central obstacle. Large language models predict the next likely word rather than verifying facts, he explained, and the error rate climbs sharply once a topic becomes obscure.
He cited a case on German Wikipedia where a new editor added book references using AI-generated ISBN numbers, only for other contributors to discover the books didn't exist.
The editor was unaware that the software could generate credible references, which is, in Wales' opinion, an example of why AI can help but not yet replace editors.
The decision of Wikipedia not to run advertisements or subscribe is not just about being an idealist organisation, in Wales' opinion. There are no motivations to generate traffic by using sensational titles.
There are 60,000 to 80,000 volunteers who edit Wikipedia worldwide, among whom there are about 5,000 who do the major part of the job, communicating through a rigorous referencing process.
When asked regarding Grokipedia's neutrality based on being driven by AI, Wales did not believe it to be the case.
Grokipedia, Wales claimed, would rather resemble Musk's personal political views, and given the lack of transparency regarding the data used to train the AI and the instructions, there was no way for the user to understand if it provided a biased or unbiased perspective.
Wales also pushed back on the common assumption that Wikipedia measures a subject's importance. What matters, he said, is whether independent, reliable sources exist to support a biography, not how well-known someone is.
A personal blog isn't sufficient sourcing regardless of the subject's accomplishments, while lesser-known scientists or public figures can qualify for an entry if their contributions are documented reliably.
