B
NARRATIVE VALUE
Certainty
●●● high
ABCDEFG
There is no confirmed −; independently verified + decide the position (B). No unreachable strike-through.= non-additive meter
As of: 2026-Q4Status: ActiveCeiling reason: No confirmed −
History2026-Q4BHistory grows each quarter
Wikimedia Foundation: An encyclopaedia with no advertising, free to everyone. The letter is B; certainty is high. Unconfirmed concerns are placed under “Watching.” (As of 2026-Q4; estimate based on public information.)
Main narrative
Wikipedia, launched in 2001, was an experiment that looked reckless at the time: an encyclopaedia anyone could rewrite. In 2003 the Wikimedia Foundation was created as the non-profit that runs it. The Foundation does not write the articles. Volunteers around the world do that; the Foundation carries the servers, the software, the legal defense and the fundraising.
What defines it is what it refuses to do. It does not run advertising. It does not charge for reading. It does not sell editing privileges to donors. Almost all of its income comes from small individual gifts. According to its 2025-26 and 2026-27 annual plans, there are around 1.5 billion readers (27% of internet users), some 7.7 million donors and about 273,000 editors. More than 300 language editions exist, and in precisely those languages where a commercial encyclopaedia would never break even, this is often the only reference that exists. Access to knowledge has been separated from ability to pay.
One person’s story (N1)
+ A single story
The benefit appears collectively. In precisely the languages where a paid encyclopaedia could never break even, this is the only reference that exists. The Foundation's 2026-27 plan reports around 1.5 billion readers (27% of internet users) and about 273,000 editors. There is not a single line of advertising and no charge for reading. Whether you can reach knowledge has been separated from whether you can pay. Source type: program-official (annual plan)
Source nature: Wikimedia Foundation / T2 program-official. Positive effects are not used to offset negatives.
Positive / negative effects
+ effects
- The positive side of this assessment rests on the single story (N1) above and its source. A per-item ledger of positive effects has not yet been compiled for this organization.T2 program-official
Watching (unconfirmed; not counted in the assessment)- Stagnating and skewed editor numbers
- the effect of generative-AI summaries on traffic and donations
Looking ahead (not included in the assessment)- The 2026-27 plan centers on an 'audience funnel' that turns readers into participants.
A second look
Many readers now meet the content through search results and AI summaries and never return to the source. Editor numbers have plateaued and the editing community remains skewed. Who writes, and what goes unwritten, is the question at the heart of this model.
Sources
+N1Wikimedia Foundation｜Annual Plan 2026-2027｜2026｜🔗
How to read this assessment
A Independently verified +, with no confirmed −
B Leans +, with independent backing
C Mixed. A confirmed − sets the ceiling, or much is unverified
D A serious confirmed − sets the ceiling
E A serious − reaches the core of the organization
F Serious and systemic, with little redeeming +
G Only extreme cases
Out of scope An entity whose core purpose is illegal
On hold Independent evidence is scarce on both + and −
- Reachable upper bound (ceiling): a confirmed − sets the ceiling, and independently verified + decide the position within it. + do not cancel out −.
- The weight of evidence is not symmetric: only confirmed − are counted; the volume of disputes or allegations goes under “Watching.” + are counted from independent evidence, while an organization’s own PR is treated as “reference.”
- Size is not value: scale is not used in the assessment. Matters that stay within money or competition—investors, shareholders, sanctions, trade secrets—are also excluded.
- The letter (assessment) and certainty (how reliable the information is) are separate axes.
This is a translation; the Japanese version is authoritative. The assessments here are generated automatically by AI based on published criteria. The operator does not alter individual results. Because they are AI-generated they may contain errors, and they are opinion and commentary, not statements of fact. Where evidence is insufficient, the entry is marked “On hold.” Requests for correction are accepted via the form.
Terms: Narrative Value = an assessment (A–G) of the distance between the narrative an organization tells and its reality / Ceiling meter = a visualization of the reachable upper bound / Watching = unconfirmed matters not counted / Protected stakeholders = people, animals, nature, and future generations. | Generated by: AI | As of: 2026-Q4 | Back to top