Wikipedia research: How studies shape the world's largest encyclopedia

When you look up a fact on Wikipedia, a free, collaborative encyclopedia built by volunteers and shaped by research-driven policies. Also known as the free encyclopedia, it doesn’t just collect information—it tests it, debates it, and rewrites it based on real-world evidence. This isn’t guesswork. Every edit, policy change, and community decision is backed by Wikipedia research, systematic studies on how knowledge is created, shared, and challenged online. These aren’t academic papers buried in journals—they’re live experiments happening right now, in real time, as editors fight misinformation, fix bias, and push back against AI systems that steal their work.

Behind every article is a chain of evidence. Reliable sources, books, peer-reviewed journals, and trusted news outlets that meet Wikipedia’s strict criteria are the foundation. But what counts as reliable? Research shows that secondary sources—like analysis and summaries—are preferred over raw data or firsthand accounts. That’s why journalists use Wikipedia not as a source, but as a map to the real ones. Meanwhile, AI ethics, the growing debate over whether machines should edit human knowledge is turning into one of the biggest threats to Wikipedia’s integrity. Studies reveal AI encyclopedias often cite sources that don’t actually support their claims. They miss context. They erase minority views. And they don’t care about copyright. Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s own research teams track how often articles are vandalized, who edits them, and why some topics—like Indigenous history or women’s achievements—still lag behind.

It’s not just about fixing errors. It’s about fixing power. Research on encyclopedia bias, how systemic gaps in representation shape what’s considered "common knowledge" led to task forces that now focus on adding missing voices. It’s why Wikidata exists—to make sure facts about a person in Swahili, Arabic, or Quechua all line up the same way. And it’s why the Wikimedia Foundation spends time on Wikimedia Enterprise, a service that sells Wikipedia data to corporations, sparking heated debates about who profits from free knowledge. These aren’t side issues. They’re core to whether Wikipedia stays trustworthy.

What you’ll find below isn’t just a list of articles. It’s a window into how real research—done by volunteers, journalists, and data scientists—keeps Wikipedia alive. From how copy editors clear 12,000 backlog articles to how AI is quietly rewriting history without permission, every post here answers one question: Who gets to decide what’s true? And how do we make sure they’re right?