Long before the tempest of AI struck Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation was preparing for the storm. Wikipedians, ever optimistic, predicted AI would augment, not supplant, their work. Yet, by 2026, AI’s output was deemed so problematic that writing with such tools was outright banned. Contributions reduced, the fear was a vicious cycle where AI might replace human effort, leading to a Wikipedia stripped of passion and purpose.

The risk, as another Wikipedian warned, is a ‘whittling down’ of talented writers, necessitating a constant influx of new editors, particularly experts, to maintain the project's quality. A machine-edited encyclopedia might become a cold, monotonous entity, lacking the nuance and passion that make human contributions invaluable.

As Google’s AI Overviews became as central to search experiences as Wikipedia once was, the question of reliability looms. If Wikipedia itself is corrupted by AI, how will we verify its accuracy? The appeal of a single, machine-edited encyclopedia as a final authority is countered by the fear of its potential cruelty and lack of aesthetic value. Its unvariegated output, dubbed ‘slop,’ hints at the homogenised, uninteresting nature of AI’s creations.

Wikipedia’s value, however, lies not just in its vastness but in its humanity. Despite its imperfections, it has been a source of knowledge and aid in countless, often mundane, ways. The question remains: can a machine truly replace the spark of human creativity and passion that makes Wikipedia more than just a collection of facts?