(23 Jun 2025) “Wikipedia is far from perfect. Its mechanisms can and do enable vandalism (though editors often revert vandalism within a few hours, or even a few minutes). Readers must watch out for uncited statements or promotional language. For new editors—Wikipedia’s term for its contributors—the site’s policies and style guidance can feel frustratingly arcane and difficult. Wikipedia’s editor base skews heavily white and male, which introduces the potential for unconscious bias, and can create an alienating environment for editors who are women and/or people of color. These are real issues, but they do not mean Wikipedia has no valid place in the information ecosystem. Any information source has its strengths and weaknesses, and we must approach all sources with a critical lens.
Optimistically, I hope the library field has reached a place where most of us understand how great Wikipedia is for certain uses. However, we need to go further. In our new world of generative AI and volatile American politics, our fields must approach Wikipedia as not just a tool, but as an ally. Let me explain.”
Nathan Sonnenschein, User Services & Experience Librarian at Montana State University Billings, shares his thoughts here.
