Wikipedia isn’t just a collection of articles-it’s a living community that debates, votes, and decides what stays, what goes, and how things should be done. Every week, hundreds of editors jump into Requests for Comment (RfC) discussions to sort out disputes over content, neutrality, sourcing, and even who gets to edit what. These aren’t quiet backroom talks. They’re public, open, and sometimes heated. And right now, several RfCs are shaping how Wikipedia looks and works in early 2026.
Biographies of living people under fire
A major RfC is underway about how Wikipedia handles biographies of living people who aren’t famous by traditional standards. One editor proposed stricter sourcing rules for people who gained attention through social media, reality TV, or viral moments. Right now, a person can get a Wikipedia page if they’ve been covered by two independent sources. But critics argue that some of those sources are blog posts, YouTube channels, or fan wikis. The RfC has drawn over 80 responses. Supporters say Wikipedia shouldn’t become a directory of internet influencers. Opponents say it’s discrimination against non-traditional fame. The discussion is still open, but early consensus leans toward requiring at least one reputable, non-tabloid source-like a newspaper, academic journal, or major documentary-for anyone not holding public office or a professional title.
Neutral point of view vs. activist language
Another hot topic is the use of activist language in articles about climate change, gender identity, and racial justice. An editor flagged the phrase “climate crisis” in over 1,200 articles, arguing it’s not neutral-it’s advocacy. Others countered that “climate crisis” is used by the UN, IPCC, and over 130 major news outlets. The RfC has sparked a broader debate: when does accurate terminology become biased language? The discussion now includes examples from other fields too-like whether “illegal immigrant” should be replaced with “undocumented migrant,” and whether “transgender woman” should always be preceded by “biological male.” So far, the community hasn’t voted, but a draft guideline is forming: use terms that reflect the most widely accepted language in reliable sources, even if they’re politically charged. The key is consistency, not censorship.
Automated edits and bot conflicts
Bots are everywhere on Wikipedia. They fix spelling, add citations, and remove vandalism. But one bot, named “WikiCleaner 3.0,” started removing entire sections from articles about defunct video games and obscure bands because they lacked citations. The bot didn’t ask anyone. It just deleted. Over 300 articles were affected in two weeks. A group of editors launched an RfC asking whether bots should be allowed to delete content without human review. The bot’s creator says it’s following existing deletion policies. Critics say it’s erasing cultural history that’s hard to verify but still meaningful. The RfC now has a proposed compromise: bots can flag content for deletion, but they can’t remove it without a second human editor’s approval. That rule is being tested in a sandbox, and if it works, it could become standard policy across all bots.
Conflict of interest editing by institutions
Universities, corporations, and nonprofits have long tried to shape their Wikipedia pages. But lately, there’s been a spike in edits from official university press offices and corporate PR teams. One university in Canada edited its own article to remove mentions of a past scandal involving its president. A tech company added a glowing quote from its CEO to its “History” section. These edits were flagged by volunteer editors, leading to an RfC about whether institutions should be allowed to edit their own pages at all. The current policy says “no direct editing,” but enforcement is patchy. The RfC proposes a new system: institutions can submit edits through a formal portal, and trained volunteers review them before publishing. It’s not a ban-it’s a filter. Over 60% of participants in the RfC support this model. If it passes, Wikipedia will become the first major encyclopedia to create a formal institutional editing pathway.
Language bias in non-English articles
Wikipedia has over 300 language versions. But English articles are often longer, better sourced, and more detailed than others. An RfC is looking at why articles about African, Southeast Asian, and Indigenous topics in non-English Wikipedias are frequently shorter or less developed. Is it because editors in those regions have less access to reliable sources? Or because English-speaking editors dominate global discussions and push their standards onto others? The RfC has uncovered a pattern: articles in Spanish, Arabic, and Hindi about local history often get tagged as “needs citation” even when they cite local newspapers or oral histories. The community is now pushing for a new guideline: local sources should be accepted as valid if they’re widely recognized in their region-even if they’re not indexed in Western databases. A pilot project is already underway in Nigeria and Indonesia, where volunteers are training local editors to upload scanned newspaper archives. Early results show a 40% increase in article quality within six months.
What happens next?
Wikipedia’s RfC system doesn’t work like a vote. It’s not a majority rules system. It’s a consensus-building tool. That means even if 90% of participants agree, one editor with deep knowledge can still block a change if they show a clear flaw in the logic. That’s why some RfCs take months to resolve. But that’s also why Wikipedia stays stable. It’s not driven by trends. It’s driven by evidence, discussion, and patience.
Right now, you can read all active RfCs at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You don’t need to be an expert to join. You just need to read the discussion, cite your reasoning, and stay calm. Many of the biggest policy changes in Wikipedia’s history started with someone just saying, “I think this is wrong.”
How to follow along
- Check the RfC page weekly-new discussions start every day.
- Look for RfCs tagged with “active” or “open.” Avoid those marked “closed” or “archived.”
- Read the first three responses. Often, the core issue is clear by then.
- If you want to comment, stick to policy, not opinion. Cite existing guidelines.
- Don’t expect instant results. Consensus takes time.
Why this matters
Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world. Millions of students, journalists, and curious people rely on it every day. But behind every fact is a decision made by volunteers. These RfCs are how those decisions get made-not by a CEO, not by an algorithm, but by people who care enough to show up, argue, and listen. That’s what makes Wikipedia different from every other encyclopedia. It’s not perfect. But it’s alive.
What is a Wikipedia Request for Comment (RfC)?
A Request for Comment (RfC) is a formal process on Wikipedia where editors raise disputes or propose policy changes and invite the community to discuss them. It’s not a vote-it’s a way to build consensus through reasoned debate. RfCs cover everything from article content to editing rules and community behavior.
Can anyone participate in an RfC?
Yes. Any registered editor can join an RfC, even if they’re new. You don’t need special rights or experience. The key is to contribute thoughtfully: cite Wikipedia policies, avoid personal attacks, and focus on the issue, not the person. Many major policy changes were started by first-time editors.
How long do RfCs last?
Most RfCs run for 7 to 30 days, but complex ones can stretch longer. There’s no fixed deadline. The discussion closes when editors agree on a path forward-or when it becomes clear no consensus is possible. Some RfCs are reopened later if new information emerges.
Do RfCs lead to actual policy changes?
Yes, frequently. Many of Wikipedia’s core policies-like those on neutrality, reliable sources, and conflict of interest-started as RfCs. Not every RfC becomes policy, but if there’s strong, sustained agreement, it often does. Changes are usually documented in the RfC’s conclusion and added to official guidelines.
Why are some RfCs ignored or deleted?
RfCs aren’t deleted unless they violate rules-like being abusive, off-topic, or spam. But some fade because they lack participation. If no one responds after a week, the discussion may be closed as inactive. That doesn’t mean the issue is solved-it just means the community hasn’t engaged yet. You can always restart it with more context.
