Academics Have A Duty To Defend Open Knowledge Systems Like Wikipedia

Helen Choi argues that academics have an ethical duty to support Wikipedia, saying AI products that answer users directly may reduce visits to the volunteer-run encyclopedia and weaken the community that maintains it. Her essay appeared on LSE Impact on Oct. 19, 2026; it presents an argument for academic action rather than a new study measuring AI’s effect on Wikipedia traffic.

Choi writes that people using products such as Google Gemini and ChatGPT can receive immediate answers, sometimes accompanied by links to Wikipedia. She says many users accept the generated answers without clicking through to check the source. If that pattern continues, she argues, fewer readers could mean fewer potential contributors who write, update and correct articles. The essay does not provide traffic figures or quantify how much AI use has changed Wikipedia readership.

Choi describes Wikipedia as both a reference work and a self-governing volunteer community that produces knowledge for public use. She argues that the encyclopedia’s continued operation matters beyond its direct readership: AI companies also rely on its content, which the essay describes as five billion words used in training systems. Choi says some companies access Wikipedia through high-speed API agreements, while other AI companies scrape its content without authorization. The article does not identify the companies alleged to scrape content or give details of particular cases.

Her proposed responses include academics using their expertise to address gaps, correct errors and add context; citing Wikipedia when they rely on it in scholarly work; and teaching students to contribute. Choi also points to Wiki Education Foundation figures: since 2010, more than 152,000 students at over 8,000 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada have contributed more than 125 million words. These totals describe the program’s reported activity, not the overall condition of Wikipedia.

How Academic Support Could Help

The essay’s central concern is a potential feedback loop: if people increasingly get information through AI answers without visiting Wikipedia, fewer readers may encounter opportunities to contribute. Choi argues that could leave the volunteer community with less capacity to maintain articles. This is presented as a risk, not as a measured or inevitable outcome.

For readers, the issue is also about how shared reference material is produced and checked. Wikipedia’s articles are maintained by volunteers, while AI services can present answers without requiring users to consult or verify cited sources. Choi argues that academics can help keep the underlying knowledge resource useful by bringing subject expertise and established research practices into editing and teaching.

The argument also raises a question about the relationship between open knowledge and commercial AI. Choi says AI companies benefit from Wikipedia content while their products may divert attention from the site. Her essay calls on higher education to respond, drawing on its institutional resources and its role in training future knowledge producers.

The Case for Academic Responsibility

Choi grounds her argument in philosopher Iris Marion Young’s Social Connection Model, which links responsibility for addressing injustice to participation in the structures and processes involved. She applies that idea to academia’s connection to knowledge production: researchers and teachers contribute to those processes and, she argues, therefore have a responsibility to help address harms to knowledge communities.

The essay acknowledges that some scholars have long been skeptical of Wikipedia. Choi says citations to the site in academic journals appear to be increasing, including in high-impact publications in health sciences, but the article provides no counts or dates for that trend. She also cites the Wiki Education Foundation’s educational work as an existing route for student participation, describing contributions from students in the United States and Canada since 2010.

“Academics have a duty to defend open knowledge systems like Wikipedia”

— Helen Choi, writing in LSE Impact

Traffic Effects Remain Unmeasured

The essay does not give traffic data showing whether, or by how much, AI products have reduced Wikipedia readership. It also does not establish how many AI answers link to Wikipedia, how often users click those links, or whether changes in readership have already affected the number of volunteer editors or article updates.

Choi’s claims about unauthorized scraping are not accompanied in the supplied report by named examples or documentation. The scale and terms of AI companies’ use of Wikipedia content, and the long-term effect of AI answer services on the encyclopedia’s volunteer community, remain unclear from the essay.

Academic Contributions Are the Proposal

Choi’s proposed next steps are practical rather than tied to a dated policy milestone: academics can edit articles in their fields, cite Wikipedia transparently when they use it, and build student editing into courses. The essay reports that many instructors already use this approach and cites Wiki Education’s student contribution totals as an example of activity already under way.

The article does not announce a new program, institutional commitment or follow-up study. Whether more academics adopt these practices, and whether their contributions can offset any loss of readers or volunteers, is not established in the report.

Key Questions

What did Helen Choi argue?

Choi argued that academics have an ethical responsibility to support Wikipedia because they participate in knowledge production and have expertise and resources that can help sustain open knowledge communities.

Why does Choi say AI products may threaten Wikipedia?

She says users may accept answers from tools such as Gemini or ChatGPT without clicking through to linked Wikipedia pages. She argues that fewer readers could mean fewer potential volunteer contributors, though the essay does not quantify the effect.

How can academics support Wikipedia?

Choi suggests correcting or expanding articles, citing Wikipedia when it is used in scholarly work, and teaching students to contribute while practicing research and information literacy.

How many students have contributed through Wiki Education?

According to the figures cited in the essay, more than 152,000 students at over 8,000 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada have contributed more than 125 million words since 2010.

Has AI caused a documented decline in Wikipedia traffic?

The supplied essay argues that AI answers may divert readers, but it provides no traffic measurements establishing the size or timing of a decline.

Source: hn