The Top 10 Wikipedia Stories of 2024
2024 was nothing if not a consequential year for the world’s biggest encyclopedia. Here’s a look at Wikipedia's major milestones, notable missteps, and defining moments over the past 12 months.
Most years since 2010, The Wikipedian has undertaken the fool’s errand of ranking the ten biggest stories shaping Wikipedia and its sprawling community over the previous 12-month period. It’s an imperfect exercise, inevitably influenced by what stands out most to your humble blogger. But hey, if you’re like me, a little exercise could do you some good.
In 2024, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement once again grappled with local debates, global tensions, outside agitators, and relentless technological change. It was a year of high-stakes legal battles, internal power struggles, genuine reform efforts, and bad-faith critiques, all seeking to shape Wikipedia’s future and, ultimately, the way we understand our world.
Shall we?
10. Gender Gap Milestone Passed, Surpassed
Wikipedia editors have long sought to close the gender gap in both contributors and content. Among the sorest of spots: its biographies, of which only 15.53% were about women on the English Wikipedia when first measured in 2015. In mid-December 2024, the number tipped over 20% for the first time. This milestone was achieved through nearly a decade of effort by WikiProject Women in Red and countless contributors worldwide. And, yet by the time it was announced, it was almost over. Wikipedia stops for no man—or woman—and by late December the percentage had fallen below the threshold (18.9% as of publication time).
9. Politician’s Edits Follow COI Rule, Break Law
In late summer Portland, Oregon city councilor and then-mayoral candidate Rene Gonzalez landed himself in hot water by using $6,400 in taxpayer funds to hire an outside firm to propose a series of changes on his Wikipedia page. Politicians meddling with their own Wikipedia articles is a tale as old as time, but this one was different. Gonzalez’s team actually followed Wikipedia’s guidelines, but for some reason decided to pay for it with public funds, was found to have violated campaign finance rules, and subsequently fined. Gonzalez went on to lose the election. However, given the length of the “Controversies” section on his Wikipedia page, this was probably not the only reason. Nevertheless... progress?
8. Digital Preservation Takes an L
If you’re familiar with the Internet Archive (IA), it’s probably for its popular Wayback Machine, a tool widely used on Wikipedia to preserve defunct web pages. Another IA project, the Open Library, lets users borrow digitized books based on physical copies it owns. But the IA started making trouble for itself in 2020 when, during pandemic closures of IRL libraries, the Open Library lifted its one-to-one lending limit, allowing unlimited digital borrowing of the same book.
Publishers sued, claiming this violated copyright law. In 2023, courts ruled against the IA in Hachette v. Internet Archive and, after a long-held breath, the Second Circuit upheld the decision this September. Facing slim prospects at the Supreme Court, the IA declined to appeal and removed over 500,000 books from its collection. Though the Wayback Machine is unaffected, the ruling limits resources for Wikipedia editors and threatens broader digital preservation efforts, which is hard to read as anything but a setback for free and open knowledge.
7. Will U4C Make Editors Behave Better?
An internet-famous web comic posits that anonymity on the web can turn even normal people into jerks. Sadly, Wikipedia is not immune. Harassment and toxicity have been a persistent issue, especially as significant gaps in behavioral policies continue to exist across Wikimedia projects. To set a global standard for behavior, several years ago the WMF Board approved a Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), leading to this year’s launch of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C).
Designed to handle serious misconduct and systemic issues while complementing local processes, the rollout hasn’t been without skepticism. Some fear the U4C might interfere too much with how local communities manage themselves, while others are concerned about mediating cultural differences across the Wikimedia movement. As of this writing, the U4C has completed only two cases. This partly reflects its narrow mandate and cautious approach, but also the reality that meaningful conclusions are still years away.
6. A Wikidata Divided
If Wikipedia is meant to be read by humans, then Wikidata is meant to be read by computers. This collaboratively-edited knowledge base of structured data has arguably been the Wikimedia movement’s unsung hero over the past decade. And with nearly 115 million items—compared to Wikipedia’s (almost) 7 million articles—maintenance has become a bit of a headache. Still a good problem, right?
To ease infrastructure strain, WikiCite, a massive bibliographic metadata effort accounting for a full third of all Wikidata items, was hived off from the rest of Wikidata. The split reduced server pressure and improved reliability, solving the immediate problem. However, users now face the added burden of querying Wikidata and WikiCite separately, effectively doubling their workload. Some users worry the fix is only temporary, and that bigger issues with how Wikidata handles growth have just been kicked down the road.
5. Standing Athwart Wikipedia, Yelling Stop
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Criticism of Wikipedia from conservative quarters is nothing new, but in 2024 these attacks became more insistent and better coordinated. In June, the Manhattan Institute released a study alleging systematic bias in the assessed sentiment of language describing conservative topics. Pirate Wires, an upstart newsletter with ties to techno-billionaire Peter Thiel, ran a series of polemics with titles like “How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda”. Unrepentant poster Elon Musk revived his October 2023 offer of $1 billion to rename the platform “Dickipedia”—while personally promoting the nickname “Wokepedia”—and urging his followers to halt their donations.
Adding fuel to the fire, estranged Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger enjoyed rising celebrity among right-wing critics interested his long-standing claims that Wikipedia has abandoned its commitment to neutrality. What’s more, allies of authoritarian leaders like India’s Narendra Modi seized on these narratives, leveraging them to bolster claims of Western bias. While conservatives have succeeded in building alternative institutions in other fields, various efforts to stand up a Wikipedia rival—and Sanger has tried more than once—have never gained traction. There’s a deeper story to be told about why the MAGA movement is unlikely to develop a respected encyclopedia. For now, Wikipedia remains in the crosshairs of an increasingly polarized world.
4. Board Rejection Derails Movement Strategy
In June, a teetering shoe finally dropped when the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Board of Trustees dealt a major setback to the Movement Strategy process by declining to ratify the Movement Charter. This ambitious document, nearly a decade in the making, ostensibly aimed to establish a more equitable governance structure through the creation of a Global Council to oversee resources, strategy, and accountability. But those watching closely could see it coming: many felt the Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s (MCDC) process lacked transparency, community representation, and adequate time to review drafts. Others even saw it as a “power grab by the affiliates”.
In its place, the Board offered its own vague suggestion of WMF-led pilot programs, which may never see the light of day. In a parting shot, the MCDC, which dissolved in August, published an open letter describing “feedback loops” that “were never concluded” and alluding to “different stakeholders” who “kept trying to intervene”. What happens next isn’t clear, but one thing is: the WMF has no intention of permitting the establishment of a rival power center.
3. Wikipedia Faces Charges of Anti-Israel Bias
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict once again tested Wikipedia’s ability to reconcile conflicting narratives. Amid the continuing Gaza invasion, deepening humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s escalating hostilities with Hezbollah and Iran, Wikipedia editors grappled with a nearly impossible task.
Early in the year, the World Jewish Congress released a scathing report accusing Wikipedia of selectively enforcing its own rules. The controversy deepened when Wikipedia downgraded the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a source, citing concerns about its reliability. And it reached a boiling point when editors reached a consensus to rename the article formerly titled “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to Gaza genocide. Supporters prevailed by citing numerous scholars and human rights reports, but even relying on these sources drew criticism as systemic bias.
Wikipedia’s global reach magnifies its role as a battleground for competing worldviews. Sometimes, compromise isn’t an option, and tough judgment calls must be made. But those on the losing end are unlikely to forget anytime soon.
2. Will AI Prove to Be Catalyst or Catastrophe?
As 2024 ends, Wikipedia finds itself both crucial to and contested by the rise of artificial intelligence. Large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude rely heavily on Wikipedia for training and up-to-date answers, underscoring Wikipedia’s cornerstone position in the digital infosphere.
And yet, questions about AI’s impact on Wikipedia’s future abound. Will it draw traffic away from the site? Could it discourage potential editors from joining? WMF leaders remain optimistic, noting that traffic remains steady—at worst, its growth has slowed—and emphasizing AI’s potential to support, rather than replace, Wikipedia’s volunteer community.
To be sure, it’s possible to describe a long-term future where consumer over-reliance on AI could kill the golden goose that underpins its own success. But so long as the computational velocity of AI fails to surpass the value of human judgment, Wikipedia will survive. And the more people use AI, the more important Wikipedia will be. The challenge ahead is not survival but how Wikipedia evolves to thrive in an AI-driven world.
1. India Pressure Triggers Editor Protest
The most consequential news story of 2024—in a year full of contenders—is the potential implications of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) intensified efforts to control Wikipedia, a platform relied upon by more than a billion Indian citizens.
In a major lawsuit brought by a pro-BJP news agency, the Delhi High Court demanded the Wikimedia Foundation disclose volunteer editors’ identities or face a nationwide block. Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s protections under India’s IT Act faced regulatory scrutiny, raising the possibility of Wikipedia losing its protections as a platform—an alarming precedent for online free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation’s decision to comply with some of the court’s demands—removing disputed content and disclosing editor identities under sealed cover—sparked outrage from Wikipedia’s global community. Many saw this as a retreat from the WMF’s past resistance to authoritarian pressures, such as defying censorship demands in Russia and China. Volunteer editors warned that compromising anonymity could deter contributors from editing politically sensitive topics, and nearly 1,400 signed an open letter in protest.
India’s actions—and the WMF’s response—serve as a stark warning for other democracies. The once and future President Trump has repeatedly threatened U.S. media outlets, and ABC News’s decision to surrender in a winnable defamation case has been especially chilling. If U.S. courts start compelling similar disclosures, Wikipedia could face legal and financial threats like never before. What’s happening in India may foreshadow similar battles closer to home.
The Thrilling Conclusion
In 2024, Wikipedia faced some of its toughest challenges yet, centering on three recurring struggles: keeping information reliable, managing internal conflicts, and resisting outside pressures. Legal battles, like India’s crackdown on editor anonymity and the Internet Archive’s defeat, showed how vulnerable free knowledge can be. Governance fights like the rejection of the Movement Charter exposed deep rifts in how Wikipedia is run. Meanwhile, rising political attacks and the rapid advance of AI left the platform caught between defending its mission and staying relevant in a changing world. If this year brought chaos and controversy, just imagine what 2025 might have in store.