Tuesday, October 21, 2025

How Everyday Typing Patterns Could Help Track Brain Health

How people type on their phones could reveal more than just their texting habits. A new study from the University of Illinois Chicago, published in the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, suggests that patterns in smartphone typing may help detect early cognitive changes associated with depression and bipolar disorder. The findings open a new direction in mental health research, showing how ordinary digital behavior might offer a window into how the brain functions day to day.

Tracking cognition through ordinary behavior

Mood disorders often affect thinking speed, memory, and decision-making. Traditional ways to assess these skills involve paper tests or computer programs that measure attention and flexibility under lab conditions. While effective, these tests require time, controlled environments, and direct participation from patients, which limits how often they can be used.

The research team set out to find whether digital traces from everyday smartphone use could capture the same information without requiring people to take formal tests. They focused on a custom mobile app known as BiAffect, which records metadata about typing behavior... such as the time between keystrokes and the frequency of phone movement during typing.

Over a period of four to five weeks, 127 adults used BiAffect as their default keyboard. Some participants had mood disorders including depression or bipolar disorder, while others were healthy volunteers. Each person completed two in-person lab visits during which they performed standardized cognitive tests, such as the NIH Toolbox and the Trail Making Test Part B, both widely used to evaluate mental flexibility, working memory, and processing speed.

Patterns that reflect thinking speed

Researchers analyzed the data using statistical modeling to find links between typing features and cognitive performance. The two most telling indicators were how quickly people typed and how often they used their keyboard. Faster typing generally reflected sharper processing speed and mental agility.

Among healthy participants, slower typing corresponded with lower scores on the NIH Toolbox tests, while frequent typing was tied to stronger cognitive performance. Together, these digital patterns explained more than forty percent of the variation in thinking ability across the healthy group by the second lab visit.

However, the link between typing behavior and test performance was weaker in participants with mood disorders. Their typing data showed more inconsistency, suggesting that daily fluctuations in symptoms, medication effects, or emotional states may blur the connection between phone behavior and cognitive function.

The Trail Making insight

When the researchers turned to the Trail Making Test Part B — a task that measures mental flexibility and speed by having people draw alternating sequences of numbers and letters... the pattern changed. Typing behavior predicted performance on this test in both groups, regardless of diagnosis. Those who typed more slowly or more frequently tended to take longer to finish the paper test.

As the study noted, “typing speed reliably predicts processing speed and executive function,” and this relationship became stronger as depressive symptoms increased. The result points to executive function (the ability to plan, shift focus, and manage complex tasks) as a domain where digital patterns may reveal meaningful clues.

Why mood affects the link

According to the researchers, cognitive performance in mood disorders may fluctuate more because of symptom changes, stress, or treatment differences. These variations could explain why typing patterns predict cognition more clearly in healthy individuals. The team emphasized that these inconsistencies highlight a need to move beyond simple diagnostic labels and to track symptoms continuously over time.

They also found that people with higher depression scores showed a stronger connection between slower typing and poorer cognitive flexibility. This observation suggests that passive smartphone data might capture subtle changes in brain function as mood symptoms shift, even within the same person.

Limitations and next steps

The study ran for about a month, a relatively short period for detecting long-term changes in cognition. Most participants were well educated, which might have helped them compensate for mild impairments. Future research, the authors noted, will need longer monitoring and more diverse participants to understand how generalizable these results are.

The researchers acknowledged that not all mental skills can be detected through typing. The NIH Toolbox includes different types of tasks, and not all depend on the same cognitive processes involved in typing. That means smartphone data may be best suited for tracking certain abilities, such as processing speed and executive control, rather than overall intelligence or memory.

Everyday technology as a mental health tool

Despite its limits, the study demonstrates the potential of passive digital monitoring to complement traditional neuropsychological testing. Because people type on their phones many times a day, this approach could allow for continuous observation without disrupting normal routines.

The authors described smartphone data as “an ecologically valid, passive measure of cognitive function” that could help clinicians notice changes earlier than conventional tests. Subtle shifts in typing rhythm, for example, might one day alert healthcare providers that a patient’s thinking speed is slowing or that a depressive episode may be developing.

Using such methods could reduce the need for frequent clinic visits and enable personalized care. For patients living with mood disorders, it might also offer reassurance that their everyday actions (like texting a friend or writing a note) carry information that can support their treatment in real time.

The broader meaning

What makes this research stand out is how it connects routine digital behavior to the complexity of human cognition. Rather than relying solely on lab-based tools, it recognizes that our smartphones have become constant companions that record subtle aspects of how we move, think, and interact.

The researchers view typing as more than a habit... it is a reflection of mental coordination involving attention, planning, and motor control. If analyzed responsibly and ethically, such data could help identify changes long before they become visible in clinical settings.

The study adds to a growing field known as digital phenotyping, where everyday technology is used to understand patterns of behavior and mental health. It suggests that one day, how we type might quietly tell a story about how our brains are coping, adapting, or recovering... a story written in every keystroke.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.


Image: Faustina Okeke - unsplash

Read next: 

• Can Blockchain Blend Into Daily Digital Life Just Like AI?

• AI and Tech Giants Tighten Their Grip on Brand Loyalty in 2025
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Monday, October 20, 2025

Can Blockchain Blend Into Daily Digital Life Just Like AI?

Tech has become so ingrained in daily lives that people can hardly imagine life without it. There are so many little ways that it shows up now that it hardly even gets noticed. Your email completes your sentences, your maps silently re-routed you when there was a traffic jam, and your lights turned on when you simply demanded them to do so. This is how AI silently slipped into daily routines without attracting a lot of attention.

Blockchain, however, has not yet blended in as quietly. It still feels like something discussed mainly by tech enthusiasts and professionals. But that perception is starting to change as blockchain tools become more practical and accessible. One example is that more people are using crypto wallets.

These digital wallets make it easier for people to store, send, and receive digital assets without needing deep technical knowledge. For instance, a Polygon wallet download today is as easy as installing a new banking app. This shows how everyday users are beginning to interact with blockchain technology more naturally.

The question is, will blockchain blend into daily life the same way AI has? Will it move from being seen as the future of technology to just another part of how people live, shop, and transfer money?

AI seamlessly integrated into daily life, while blockchain gradually follows, becoming simpler, safer, and more accessible.

Image by Yourphoto on Freepik

AI Has Already Become a Daily Habit

There are so many ways AI has quietly slipped into daily life: the playlists that know your taste, your phone suggesting what to type next, or your maps rerouting you before traffic even builds up. It’s everywhere: in your Netflix recommendations, your social media feeds, and even in your spam folder, sorting out what’s junk and what’s not. According to Stanford’s 2025 AI Index Report , 78% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function.

What’s interesting is that no one really thinks about it anymore. People don’t wake up and say, “I’m using AI today.” They just use it without noticing. It’s part of what happens now, like electricity or Wi-Fi — you only notice it when it’s gone. That’s how AI won people over. It made life easier without asking for too much.

Blockchain Everyday Use Cases Are Already Here

The reality is, most people are already using blockchain without even realizing it. Some online games run on it. Certain concert tickets are NFTs. Even a few store loyalty programs quietly use blockchain to track rewards. It’s not so noticeable, it's just there. The global blockchain market hit $31.28 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow rapidly by 2030. That kind of growth shows one thing: that blockchain isn’t waiting to be discovered; it’s already here, and here to stay.

That’s exactly how new technology sticks. As soon as it begins to appear in the things that people already do, such as shopping, gaming, and streaming, it no longer feels complicated. Nobody even speaks about the internet every time they open an application, right? Blockchain is heading in the same direction.

And it’s not even about hype anymore. It’s about making life a little smoother, one app update at a time.

Making Blockchain Simple Enough for Everyone

Technology only feels complicated until someone makes it simple enough for everyone to use. That’s why AI became part of daily life so fast, and people didn’t have to learn anything new. It just blended in. You speak, and the voice assistant listens. You type, and the suggestion appears. There’s no extra step.

Blockchain, in turn, is something that you have to be tutored on. The words sound technical, and the process looks confusing. But that’s slowly changing. New exchange and wallet apps now have clean designs and quick sign-ins, and better security means people don’t have to worry so much about mistakes.

It is not about understanding all of the details of the way it works; it is about it being natural. But it might take a while before blockchain becomes a part of everyday life, but very soon, the usage of blockchain will be as straightforward as sending a text or the process of making an online payment.

Trust and Transparency: The Real Selling Points

AI is largely predictive; it tries to guess what you would want to say or say next. Blockchain, however, is all about evidence. All the actions are documented, transparent, and traceable. You have the opportunity to know what, when, and by whom it was approved. This type of sincerity is not common on the internet.

This is what makes blockchain special. It can make paying, signing digital contracts, or even proving your identity safer. Instead of relying on a company to “promise” that your data is secure, you can actually see the record for yourself.

It’s the same kind of confidence people already have when they log into online banking or use an AI assistant that just works. The difference is that with blockchain, trust isn’t given; it’s built into the system itself.

What Still Holds It Back

Like most new things, blockchain has yet to go through some bumps on the road. There are those who do not trust it yet due to the scams and hacks they have heard about. For example, earlier this year, hackers stole $1.5 billion worth of Ethereum from crypto exchange Bybit.

Others believe that it is too complex or sluggish. And then there is regulation; the rules are not yet sorted, making businesses concerned about putting their feet in the water.

However, these are not lasting problems. With each passing month, transactions are becoming faster and safer with new updates, and government regulations are becoming more crypto-friendly. Big tech companies are also collaborating with blockchain startups to ensure that it becomes easier for all.

It is just like how AI needed time to find its rhythm; as soon as the tools got simpler and more reliable, people began using them without even realizing it. Blockchain is just taking time to reach that same direction. When it does, it will no longer be technology; it will simply be life.

[Partner Content]


by Web Desk via Digital Information World

AI and Tech Giants Tighten Their Grip on Brand Loyalty in 2025

Artificial intelligence and major technology platforms now dominate consumer loyalty in the United States. The latest Brand Keys Loyalty Leaders report shows Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and ChatGPT leading a field once filled by traditional names. Their growing influence reflects how customer attachment has shifted toward digital ecosystems that learn, adapt, and respond in real time.

The 2025 study surveyed more than seventy-seven thousand consumers who rated nearly fifteen hundred brands across multiple sectors. Amazon kept its position at the top of the list, while Google and Microsoft followed close behind. These companies continue to use AI to personalize search, shopping, and software experiences, strengthening the emotional link between users and their digital environments.

ChatGPT made the sharpest rise among the top brands, moving from fortieth to eighth place. Its daily use across work, learning, and creative tasks has turned interaction into habit. That constant presence appears to generate familiarity similar to how people once felt about household names. Generative AI tools, designed to respond contextually, seem to foster recognition rather than repetition.

AI Drives a New Kind of Loyalty

The research indicates that brand trust now forms around prediction and personalization. In earlier years, loyalty often came from price, convenience, or marketing campaigns. Today it grows through platforms that anticipate needs and offer timely suggestions. AI makes that possible by adjusting to a person’s intent, tone, or setting in ways static programs never could.

Google’s move to second place reflects that change. Its services combine search, maps, communication, and AI-powered assistance across devices. Microsoft’s strong ranking shows similar patterns as users rely on its cloud and productivity tools to organize daily life. Together, these firms anchor the technological side of loyalty, where dependability and integration matter more than slogans.

Social Platforms Gain Ground

Social media and streaming platforms also hold their place in the loyalty landscape. TikTok remains among the most followed brands, built on an algorithm that continuously refines what people see. Paramount+ gained traction through consistent personalization, showing how entertainment loyalty depends less on content libraries and more on how systems recognize viewing habits. These examples underline how attention and interaction now build lasting consumer ties.

Predictive Connection Replaces Routine Loyalty

AI bridges what analysts call the loyalty gap—the space between customer expectations and brand performance. Instead of waiting for feedback, platforms adjust immediately, often before users notice a need. That sense of responsiveness builds trust faster than traditional programs ever managed. It explains why technology companies, especially those leading in AI development, dominate the upper end of the ranking.

Nearly all top-ranked brands operate in data-driven sectors. Their strength lies in creating experiences that feel individualized. As users rely on apps and assistants to handle everyday decisions, their relationship with technology becomes reciprocal. Each interaction refines the system, and in turn, the system reflects the user’s preferences more accurately.

The Loyalty Map of 2025

The 2025 list confirms how far digital platforms have advanced in shaping consumer behavior. Loyalty has become an outcome of interaction, not advertising. For most U.S. consumers, commitment now depends on how smoothly technology fits into daily life. As AI blends with communication, shopping, and entertainment, brand choice increasingly depends on consistent performance and trust in automated systems.

The pattern is clear. Loyalty in 2025 belongs to companies that make technology personal and dependable. The closer AI comes to understanding human behavior, the stronger the bond between users and the brands that serve them.



Brand (Category) 2025 2024
Amazon (Online Retail) 1 2
Google (Search Engines) 2 25
Microsoft (Computers) 3 32
Apple (Smartphones) 4 1
Coca-Cola (Soft Drinks) 5 81
Samsung (Smartphones) 6 7
Paramount+ (Streaming Video) 7 74
ChatGPT (AI) 8 40
TikTok (Social Networking) 9 3
Levi Strauss (Apparel Retailers) 10 8
Discover (Credit Cards) 11 12
McDonald's (Quick Serve) 12 31
Netflix (Video Streaming) 13 5
PayPal (Online Payments) 14 21
Dunkin' (Coffee) 15 9
Disney+ (Streaming Video) 16 20
Hyundai (Automotive) 17 11
Walmart.com (Online Retail) 18 27
Toyota (Automotive) 19 26
Domino's (Pizza) 20 4
Trader Joe's (Natural Foods) 21 13
Nike (Athletic Footwear) 22 18
Home Depot (Retail Home Improvement) 23 15
American Express (Credit Cards) 24 19
Jeep (Automotive) 25 33
Hulu (Video Streaming) 26 35
Samsung (Computers) 27 38
Ford (Automotive) 28 17
Apple TV (Streaming Video) 29 22
YouTube (Social Networking) 30 6
Amazon (Video Streaming) 31 16
WhatsApp (Instant Messaging) 32 14
MSNBC (Cable News) 33 24
Amazon (Tablets) 34 34
Apple (Computers) 35 43
Crest (Toothpaste) 36 45
FOX (TV News) 37 23
FedEx (Delivery Services) 38 47
Subaru (Automotive) 39 56
Modelo Esp. (Beer - Reg.) 40 67

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: The World Goes Digital: Six Billion People Now Online As Social Media And AI Reshape Habits
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Claude’s Small Crowd Is Paying Big, and That’s Changing the AI Race

Anthropic’s Claude has gradually built a profitable position in the crowded AI market. It may not draw the attention that ChatGPT or Grok receive, but its financial performance tells a different story. Despite having far fewer users, Claude generates almost as much revenue per person as OpenAI’s flagship app, which shows that scale alone no longer defines success in this field.

Appfigures estimates that Claude has around fifteen million downloads, compared with nearly eight hundred million for ChatGPT. Yet each of Claude’s installs brings in roughly two dollars and ninety-seven cents in net revenue, close to ChatGPT’s three dollars and fourteen cents. Grok and Perplexity earn less than a dollar per user, which places Anthropic in a far stronger position than many expected. In September, Claude users spent an estimated five and a half million dollars through Apple’s and Google’s stores, reflecting steady in-app income despite limited reach.


OpenAI’s financial structure remains far larger, backed by about one trillion dollars’ worth of commercial agreements and a valuation near five hundred billion dollars, the highest for any private company. Anthropic, supported by its own investors including Amazon and Google, holds a valuation around one hundred eighty-three billion, yet its growth rate has been sharper. The company’s annual revenue run rate stood near one billion dollars at the end of 2024, reached about three billion by mid-2025, and is now estimated at seven billion as of October. Forecasts suggest it could hit nine billion by year-end. OpenAI’s revenue run rate rose from roughly five and a half billion in January to about twelve billion by July, but the gap between the two is shrinking quickly.

The pace of change is striking. OpenAI first reached the one-billion-dollar annual level in mid-2023. Anthropic achieved the same milestone a year later, then multiplied that figure several times within twelve months. The company’s internal target of twenty-six billion in yearly revenue by 2026 now looks ambitious but not unrealistic.

Chart: Sherwood

Part of that momentum comes from the way Anthropic has positioned Claude. The app draws a smaller but more committed audience, made up largely of professionals and developers who use it for practical work. These users are more inclined to pay for subscriptions and advanced features, creating higher average returns than broader consumer bases typically deliver. That kind of focused monetization gives Anthropic an efficiency that few competitors have managed to match.

Sustaining this level of performance will be difficult once the user base expands. Growth often attracts casual users who spend less, which can reduce the per-user average. Yet if Anthropic can preserve even part of that revenue ratio while scaling, it will keep its business healthier than rivals with far larger followings.

The competition between OpenAI and Anthropic now defines the economic core of the AI industry. OpenAI’s size and valuation still set it apart, but Anthropic’s disciplined strategy shows that financial strength can come from depth rather than reach. Claude may never rival ChatGPT in total downloads, yet it has already proven that profitability per user can be just as powerful a measure of success.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Bluesky’s Most Blocked Accounts Revealed, and the Results Are Unexpected
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

OpenAI Faces Backlash Over Misreported GPT-5 Math Breakthrough

OpenAI’s latest claim about GPT-5 solving a series of long-standing mathematical problems has drawn criticism after the company’s researchers appeared to overstate the model’s achievements. What was initially presented as a landmark moment in artificial intelligence quickly turned into an example of how hype can outpace accuracy in research communication.

The controversy began when a senior OpenAI manager shared that GPT-5 had discovered solutions to ten famous ErdÅ‘s problems and made progress on several others. The announcement suggested that the model had independently cracked mathematical puzzles that had resisted human researchers for decades. Other team members echoed the message, fueling speculation about AI’s growing ability to produce original research results.

The excitement faded within hours when mathematicians pointed out that the claim misrepresented what actually happened. The so-called “unsolved” problems had already been resolved in academic papers, though not cataloged on all reference sites. GPT-5 had simply retrieved existing studies that the website’s curator had not yet encountered. This made the model’s role more about locating forgotten work rather than generating new solutions.

Prominent figures from the AI community were quick to react, calling the episode careless and unnecessary. The posts were later removed, and OpenAI researchers acknowledged that the model had found references in published literature, not new proofs. While the incident was contained quickly, it revived ongoing criticism about the company’s communication style and the pressure it faces to showcase major discoveries.
The more grounded takeaway is that GPT-5’s real strength lies in its capacity to navigate dense academic material. By connecting references scattered across different journals, the system can help researchers track progress in fields where terminology and records vary widely. In mathematical research, that can save considerable time and uncover overlooked connections.

Experts note that this utility should not be mistaken for independent reasoning. GPT-5 may accelerate review work and simplify the search for relevant studies, but human oversight remains essential for validation and interpretation. The episode highlights a growing challenge for the AI industry: distinguishing genuine advancement from overstatement in an environment where public attention often rewards spectacle more than precision.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen. 

Read next:

• Rude Prompts Give ChatGPT Sharper Answers, Penn State Study Finds

• New Report Finds OpenAI's GPT-5 More Likely to Produce Harmful Content Despite Safety Claims
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Sunday, October 19, 2025

Have Bots Taken Over Online Writing, or Are We Still Reading Human Work Without Knowing It?

The online world is quietly shifting in ways most readers barely notice. A new analysis from Graphite, an SEO research company, shows that artificial intelligence now produces more than half of all the articles found on the web. The finding, based on 65,000 English-language pages published between early 2020 and mid-2025, marks one of the most dramatic changes in digital publishing since the early blogging era.

Graphite’s team traced the rise back to late 2022, the moment ChatGPT appeared. Within twelve months, the number of AI-written articles had climbed to nearly half of all online output, and by November 2024, automated content overtook human work entirely. What began as a quick way to fill gaps in websites or boost traffic has become a dominant form of digital writing.


The study shows that growth began to slow around May 2024, when the balance between human and AI-produced text leveled off. Some months since then have seen human output slightly ahead, but overall, the two remain close. Researchers did not pinpoint why the surge tapered, though one likely reason is that machine-written pages do not attract much attention from search engines or readers. Graphite’s related findings suggest that most AI-generated material is buried deep in Google results or rarely appears in chatbot summaries. That lack of visibility may have curbed enthusiasm among publishers who once relied on AI to boost their rankings.

To measure how much content came from machines, Graphite analyzed articles drawn from Common Crawl, a vast public web archive. Each text was divided into 500-word segments and assessed with Surfer, an AI-detection system that labels an article as machine-written if more than half of its content appears algorithmic. Before running the full dataset, the researchers tested the detector’s accuracy. They checked nearly sixteen thousand pieces published before ChatGPT’s release, assuming these were human-written, and found only about four percent misclassified. They then generated more than six thousand trial articles with OpenAI’s GPT-4o model, and the software correctly identified almost all of them as AI.

Even with those checks, Graphite acknowledged that detecting AI remains unreliable. Models are improving so quickly that the difference between human and machine expression is narrowing. Many writers also use hybrid methods, letting AI draft first and then revising manually. Those mixed pieces are difficult to categorize, but they likely make up a growing share of online text.

The dominance of synthetic writing doesn’t necessarily mean that quality has declined. In some studies, including one from MIT, people who read AI and human work without knowing the source rated machine-written pieces as more polished and better organized. Yet those results raise another question about what readers actually value: fluency or originality. AI-generated text draws on huge databases that include earlier online material, so every time a new model writes, it is in part reusing fragments of the web that came before. Over time, that cycle could dilute the originality of the internet itself.

Still, automation offers a tempting advantage for publishers who need a constant stream of updates or product reviews. Producing hundreds of articles in a day costs little compared with hiring writers, and as long as the content passes basic checks, many sites are content to keep feeding it into the system.

The bigger concern lies in what happens next. If half the words on the internet already come from machines, and future models learn by reading that same content, the boundary between real and generated information may disappear altogether. At that point, the web would no longer reflect what people know or think... it would echo what algorithms predict they might say.

For now, the world’s online writing sits at an uneasy halfway point. Humans and machines produce roughly the same volume, but for very different reasons. One writes to communicate. The other writes to generate more of itself.


Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next:

• WhatsApp Blocks AI Chatbots to Protect Its Business Platform

• Wikipedia Faces Drop in Human Traffic as AI and Social Video Change Search Habits

When AI Feels Like a Friend: Study Finds Attachment Anxiety Linked to Emotional Reliance on Chatbots
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Saturday, October 18, 2025

Wikipedia Faces Drop in Human Traffic as AI and Social Video Change Search Habits

Wikipedia, once a central stop for online information, is now confronting a quieter but significant shift in how people explore the web. Recent figures from the Wikimedia Foundation reveal an eight-percent year-over-year decline in human visits to the encyclopedia, a change linked to the growing role of generative AI and the rise of social video as preferred sources for quick knowledge.

Hidden Traffic and Bot Reclassification

Earlier this year, Wikimedia engineers noticed irregular spikes in visits, especially from Brazil. The surge first appeared to represent genuine user interest, yet a deeper look revealed that many of those visits were from bots disguised as people. After refining its detection systems and recalculating data from March through August 2025, the foundation concluded that a large portion of what had seemed to be human activity was in fact automated scraping for AI and search engines.


Once this adjustment was made, the organization gained a clearer picture of real engagement. The downward trend that followed confirmed a decline in human visits rather than a sudden collapse of interest. It also exposed how intensively bots and crawlers continue to extract Wikipedia content to feed commercial systems, including AI tools and search summaries.

The New Gatekeepers of Knowledge

As search engines adopt AI features that deliver direct answers instead of external links, fewer users arrive at source sites such as Wikipedia. Younger audiences also spend more time on video-driven platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram for explanations that once came from text-based web searches. Similar drops in referral traffic have been seen across many publishers, showing a wider pattern in how people consume verified information.

Despite the decline, Wikipedia remains central to the digital knowledge economy. Most large language models, from those used in consumer chatbots to academic research tools, rely heavily on its content to ground their answers. Search and social platforms routinely integrate its information into their own systems. In effect, people are still reading Wikipedia every day, though often through layers of AI summaries or visual feeds that obscure the original source.

Risks to Volunteer Knowledge

While the reach of Wikipedia’s content has never been greater, the path through which readers encounter it has grown indirect. That separation carries risks. Fewer direct visits mean fewer volunteer editors contributing updates or verifying facts, and fewer small donors sustaining the nonprofit’s operations. For a platform that depends entirely on volunteer labor and individual donations, these are not minor shifts but potential structural challenges.

The Wikimedia Foundation argues that companies using its material have a shared responsibility to maintain the health of the ecosystem they depend on. Encouraging users to click through to the original pages not only keeps knowledge transparent but also ensures that the human work behind it continues.

Adapting to the Changing Internet

In response to these changes, Wikipedia is not standing still. The foundation has started enforcing stricter policies on how third parties reuse its material and is designing a new framework for attribution so that AI and search companies can credit content more visibly. Two new internal teams, Reader Growth and Reader Experience, are experimenting with ways to attract new audiences and improve engagement for existing ones.

Other projects aim to meet people where they already are. The Future Audiences initiative explores how Wikipedia’s material can appear responsibly on newer platforms through short videos, games, or chatbot integrations. The goal is to extend access without weakening the open-knowledge principles that made the site trustworthy.

Sustaining Human-Curated Knowledge

Miller and his team emphasize that maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia now depends as much on public behavior as on technology. Clicking through to sources, verifying citations, and discussing the value of human-curated information all help sustain the open web. The foundation is inviting volunteers to test new tools, share feedback, and guide the next stage of Wikipedia’s evolution as it navigates an AI-dominated era.

After twenty-five years, the encyclopedia’s mission remains unchanged: free, accurate, and transparent knowledge for everyone. Yet sustaining that mission now requires cooperation from the same digital systems that have learned so much from it. Whether AI companies and users return that support will determine how freely human knowledge continues to flow on the internet.

Rival Visions of Online Truth

Critics have long argued that Wikipedia’s openness, while its greatest strength, also leaves it vulnerable to bias that reflects the leanings of its most active editors, since articles on politics, culture, and technology often depend on a small circle of contributors whose judgments about sources or wording can tilt an entry toward one interpretation while keeping others buried under technical discussion pages that few readers ever see, and this structural imbalance has led to recurring debates about whether the encyclopedia’s governance truly reflects a neutral consensus or simply the loudest voices in its volunteer community.

In recent years, public figures frustrated with what they view as selective moderation or uneven coverage have proposed rival knowledge systems, among them Elon Musk, whose idea for “Grokpedia” would combine his AI assistant Grok with an open contribution model that, in theory, tracks edits transparently through blockchain-style provenance records and allows readers to rate factual reliability in real time, though it remains uncertain whether such a system could avoid the same ideological clustering that shaped Wikipedia’s own editor base. Examples of disputed neutrality are easy to find: pages about climate policy, Middle-East conflicts, or electric-vehicle economics often see rapid reversions and talk-page battles whenever new information challenges established wording, showing how community editing can both safeguard accuracy and entrench group bias at the same time.

The controversy underscores a central paradox of online knowledge... the more open a platform becomes, the more its internal hierarchies of trust determine what the world accepts as fact... and any successor that hopes to replace or refine Wikipedia will still need to confront that same human tendency toward narrative control disguised as consensus.

Read next: Creator Economy Shifts Offline as Brands Embrace IRL Events to Build Stronger Community Connections
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World