The Wikipedia wars and Russian disinformation:

As Wikipedia approaches its 25th anniversary in 2026, its open editing model faces a growing challenge: coordinated edit wars. In these campaigns, Kremlin-aligned actors try to rewrite history, launder disinformation, and lock distorted narratives into one of the world’s most trusted reference platforms.

Carlstak (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that one. Not that I doubt there is pro-Russia editing going on, we have lots of pro-whatever editing going on, and that it's something we need to be wary of. But it's not a new thing, for example Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict mentions several instances, 2008 and forward. And of course, Russia has more resources than the Baltic states.

I've followed some of the recent info-box discussions, and I think there are plenty of good-faith Wikipedians on both sides, but of course there are also some SPA:s etc. My own knee-jerk reaction to "that Estonian was born in Soviet" is "well duh, that's what I learned in school for more than a decade pre-1991." I also think it's quite natural that most Estonians etc probably don't want to see it that way. So here we are, trying to make our infoboxes etc WP:NPOV. I think we'll get reasonably close at some point, we often do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that Russian botnets and disinfo online helped get Trump elected in the US is pretty obvious. In Putin's on-the-ground Imperial Russia "chess" board, I think it's Estonia first, then Latvia and Lithuania. Next Finland, Poland, then maybe Sweden. He's old KGB—well-versed in their war games. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let me know if a specific issue at a particular article arises. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Carlstak (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cross-posted this at the Village Pump. Thanks for your replies. EUvsDisinfo is part of the EU's diplomatic service. I have sent them an enquiry asking if they care to respond here or there. EUvsDisinfo publishes guest content, if someone more knowledgeable than I am about the subject would like to respond to their article there. Carlstak (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-portland-accused-of-commissioning-favourable-changes-to-wikipedia-pages I think this story is also relevant to thinking about the wider issue.Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing rfc:s at Talk:Kaja_Kallas#RfC:_Footnote_in_infobox_birthplace and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#RFC:_Baltic_bios_infoboxes_question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "EUvsDisinfo" story has been removed from the website, without explanation or correction. Carlstak (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'd hope that a site like that would bother with a proper retraction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No shit. Not really surprised though. Carlstak (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith Eating Spaghetti does not depict Will Smith. This Is Not a Pipe.
Images that are "enhanced" by AI manage to fool news organizations.^[1] Enwiki was also fooled but reverted swiftly.
Actual photographers and people who retrieve material from archives ruin their work in good faith by using AI. Some people generate images to avoid copyright issues or because they lack the tools/access/willpower to take an actual photo.
When I suspect a Commons file to be AI-generated I feed it to Sightengine for a general check and Gemini to check for SynthID. This is slow, cumbersome, and relies on freemium services. Do you have any vision for better ways to tackle this?

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Fox_News_controversies#Photo_manipulation, but in the other direction, so to speak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies if this is a random ask, but I noticed your contact email on your user page is listed as a @wikia.com address. However, given Wikia is now Fandom, shouldn't that email cease to exist? Thanks, TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 21:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably still works as far as I know but yeah it probably could be updated. I'll do that now! Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. I follow Depths of Wikipedia on Bluesky. Annie Rauwerda is vastly entertaining. Carlstak (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice story: In Search of Wikipedia’s Saviors. Quote: "She had a Wikipedia page already, but it was sparse. I clicked edit, added the information that Bonwick attended school in London's Maida Vale, and cited the Hackney Society book. And there it was. It was thrilling, more thrilling than I had expected it to be." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo. I am curious to know which edit you thought was so great. Tiamut (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per the preceding post, presumably this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime builder of content here (and as a Palestinian Christian), it is disappointing to see the founder of Wikipedia praise someone for unilaterally erasing reliably sourced material on Jesus' Palestinian affiliation. Wikipedia policies regarding WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply to all topics and editors. Representation of a significant scholarly viewpoint (that also represents my heritage) should have a place here. And the founder of Wikipedia should not be encouraging its erasure (and edit warring) by those who simply don't like it.Tiamut (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Editing is nothing to be proud of, nor editing with an agenda for anything other than constructing a neutral encyclopedia, and you have cited a long list of Christian supersessionists who have a religious objective to erase Judea and Israel. Obviously we prefer historical and archaeological sources on historical and archaeological matters, not theologists. Scharb (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, the list of references cited is broader than that and I did not compile it. I am concerned with defending proper procedures. Second, your opinion/aspersion about my motivations is better kept to yourself, lest you wish others to evaluate your contributions similarly. I am not ashamed of being Palestinian or Christian and neither should I be made to feel like I should be, or that I am disqualified from editing certain topics as a result. Tiamut (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be ashamed of being either Palestinian or Christian. And if you think that my support of NPOV and policy is somehow an affront to your identity, then you might want to think again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jimmy has a lot of talk page watchers, I was hoping to get some visibility for something I intend to work on in the new future as discussed at User talk:Clovermoss#Different project comparisons. Generally speaking, I think there should be more centralized information about many things (hope to eventually do one for various WMF-related stuff to help people know that so many different things exist) but this idea seems like a more fun starting point. If anyone knows of a norm that's different across projects, please tell me. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"There is consensus to immediately deprecate archive.today, and, as soon as practicable, add it to the spam blacklist (or create an edit filter that blocks adding new links)".

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]