Wikipedia is already dead, they just don't know it yet. They'll get Stackoverflowed.

The LLMs have already guaranteed their zombie end. The HN crowd will be comically delusional about it right up to the point where Wikimedia struggles to keep the lights on and has to fire 90% of its staff. There is no scenario where that outcome is avoided (some prominent billionaire will step in with a check as they get really desperate, but it won't change anything fundamental, likely a Sergey Brin type figure).

The LLMs will do to Wikipedia, what Wikipedia & Co. did to the physical encyclopedia business.

You don't have to entirely wipe out Wikipedia's traffic base to collapse Wikimedia. They have no financial strength what-so-ever, they burn everything they intake. Their de facto collapse will be extremely rapid and is coming soon. Watch for the rumbles in 2026-2027.

That is a nice start, a rendering of GIS wikidata. Perhaps ask Wikimedia Foundation for funding :)

What I'd like to see is a more intimate marrying of OSM data and Wikipedia data. For example, if I go to zoom level 12 centred on London, UK on your page, there are about 80 text labels on the OSM layer itself. At minimum this is going to need OSM vector tiles. I'd expect to be able to click any of the OSM labels for the corresponding Wikipedia article, as well as adding in POIs for articles that don't have corresponding OSM links. And then you need OSM rendering style rules about which POIs you show at each zoom level, based on whether labels will run into each other or not.

The problem right now is that the WikiMiniAtlas treats all things, whether large areas or individual POIs, as POIs.

LLM's can't just be "the center of knowledge" on their own, they need to learn and be trained if they are to be useful. A whole lot of LLM knowledge comes from Wikipedia to begin with.

For a top-10 Internet website it's not "bloated" at all, if anything it's still running on a shoestring budget. And the fundraising ends up supporting a huge variety of technical improvements and less known "sister" projects that are instrumental in letting the community thrive and be relevant for the foreseeable future. Sure, you could keep the existing content online for a lot less than what they're asking for, but that's not what folks are looking for when they visit the site. Keeping a thriving community takes a whole lot of effort especially in this day and age where a vast majority of people just use the Internet for 100% casual entertainment, not productive activity.

Wikipedia is literally a spin-off of a porn company.

From that point on, where it came from or who founded it is not so important. The question is how it acts today.

It is a highly-political organization supporting lot of “progressive” ideas, California-style. So if you like reading politically biased media it may be for you.

If you are seeking for a global view you better ask different LLMs for arguments and counter-arguments on a subject.

EDIT: a couple downvotes denying the influence of specific “Wikipedia ideology” and politics.

Take a chance to edit articles and you will see how tedious it is.

There is also a lot of legal censorship. Celebrities putting pressure on removing info, or lobbies, or say things that are illegal or very frowned upon (for example questioning homosexuality, or the impact of certain wars).

Sometime it is legality, ideology, politics, funding, pressure, etc.

This is why you need to use different sources.

I've never seen an article like that, other than for people like Epstein, who are primarily famous for their crimes. I just went and checked the pages of some famous people where you might expect this kind of treatment if Wikipedia were indeed biased in the way people seem to think (like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz), and they're not like that.

There are a lot of comments in this thread talking about a strong bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see any examples. I have no doubt that there are some articles that are biased, particularly in less popular areas that get less attention, but overall, Wikipedia does a great job maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles.

I do get the impression that what people perceive as bias is often simply neutrality. If you think yourself the victim of an evil cabal of your political opponents, then a neutral description of the facts might seem like an attack.

Please provide an example so we can evaluate what makes even someone as non-political and neutral as you raise an eyebrow.