As many of you know, last year I began to edit Wikipedia in earnest (I won’t shut up about it). One of the first articles I edited was the Panorama portrait page, chosen at random from my homepage. My aim was to find sources in order to reinforce the bibliography of the article (a common newcomer task). But alas - what I thought would be easy was not so straightforward. Anytime I searched “panorama lens” (on Duck Duck Go no less), I was swarmed with articles trying to recommend photographic lenses to me, a consumer. And before you ask - Advanced Search or Google Scholar aren’t always the best solution, especially when I don’t want to wade through studies on niche topics. Though this is a specific anecdote, being overwhelmed with click bait nonsense is not uncommon when searching for information online. The issue also seems to be increasing.
Last year, as AI chatbots (or more broadly, LLMs) became mainstream, the issue of search sludge was the talk of the town. Often, Google Search Algorithm engineers and SEO-maxing click bait creators are in a battle for dominance over search results; Google Search modifies their algorithm slightly, and promptly there are 1 bazillion articles made about how to SEO-max your website. Then, many more nonsense articles are created and advertised on all the sticky corners of the internet, in hopes that you (general) will click (or even hover) on a link. LLMs have not fundamentally changed that decades-long struggle, but have increased the ability of anyone with a computer and internet connection to generate large quantities of text very quickly. Said another way, LLMs increased the arsenal on the side of the click-bait, which is drowning out the interesting stuff.
And Google has responded in kind. If you have used Google in the last 10 months, you have probably noticed the “AI Overview” window pop up at the top of your search results. Needless to say, Google’s integration of AI into their search results was met with mixed results.
But I am not here, in your inbox, to talk about Google (fuck them). I am here to talk about Wikipedia, because why, after multiple decades, has Wikipedia lasted as a (mostly) reliable source of information - so much so that Google regularly indexes Wiki pages into search results, the content of such pages is scraped and tagged for ML, and cited (or copied) on most other webpages on a given topic?* Often, I even notice Wikipedia articles spelled out, verbatim, on other websites (without citation, of course). When I was in school, I was routinely told that Wikipedia was not a reliable source to cite. So how is it now one of the most widely-accessed (dare I say the most?) pervading sources of (mostly) reliable information online?
The answer to this question is far more complex than I know, or have room to explain in an email. So for the sake of comparison, I am going to shift focus to another website that is often scraped for information: Reddit. Because last year, at the height of the LLM search sludge discourse, many people shifted to using Reddit to find information (using the handy “cite:reddit” after their query). Though Reddit is not fact-checked to the extent of Wikipedia (which is still not enough), both are examples of websites with lots of volunteers who are giving their time to provide or fact-check information simply because they want to. And these users are almost always without a profit motivation.**
Human Volunteers? Doing unpaid work?? Simply because they want to??? Though it seems unheard of, I have seen echoes of the type of engagement in early internet usage, before the Internet was so corporate-driven by a handful of monopolies. I am thinking, of course, about the Computerized Bulletin Board System (CBBS, or, BBS). This last half-year, I have been processing files for Gerber/Hart, which are captures of a BBS based in Chicago from 1990-1995. This involves reading hundreds of pages of posts and comments. And honestly, it reminds me of Reddit.*** The files are full of shitposts, arguments, personals, and the like; people flirt, troll, joke, and use lots of slurs. But, they also ask questions, give honest answers, and provide accounts of political situations.
As someone who made an Instagram account when they were 12, it is hard to grasp the anonymity built into a text-based platform that is open-source and run by volunteers. But that is where the magic of the internet is, really. At least, it is where I am able to believe that the internet is really full of people, not bots. It might be my anarchistic tendencies, but I really believe that people enjoy doing things for and with other people, full stop. Though not completely reliable, the pervading relevance of websites such as Wikipedia and Reddit as sources of information, that Internet users are drawn to, makes me hopeful that the future of telecommunication technology is not metallic, but useful. Perhaps even humanistic. Even with the storm we (will continue to) bear, I cannot believe that the essence of the Internet will disappear. Because telecommunication technology is built for communication.**** That was its intended use. And communication, though varied, is fundamentally about connection. If the Internet is overridden with bots, people will still be here. And will need to communicate, across varying distances, ask questions, and give (mostly correct) answers.
✍︎ emrys
* Sometimes leading to the unfortunate (though interesting) phenomena of circular reporting.
** Indeed, most Reddit moderators look down upon self-promotion (except in r/selfpromote), and accepting money as a moderator is a violation of their code of conduct. Wikipedia editors are rarely paid (they must disclose any payment), and the historic Bounty Board was made inactive in 2013. There is a bit of an interesting story around paid editors, but that would warrant a different article.
*** To a lesser extent, it reminds me of the Talk section on Wiki pages, and also of Lex.
**** And further - I would argue it was built for semantic communication (coded - as in language and numbers).
sent 3/5/25