Wikipedia editors save Sam Altman's life

In the media

Wikipedia editors save Sam Altman's life

By Andreas Kolbe, Bri, Czarking0, and Mitchsavl

Cunningham's Law

Sam Altman is undead ... gee, hope this doesn't go viral too.

Several publications highlighted how a briefly visible vandalism edit to Open AI CEO Sam Altman's Wikipedia article led Google Search to show that he was dead.^[1] The edit falsely claimed that Altman had been assassinated, with the edit reverted 42 minutes later. Google's search overview picked up on this addition and "informed" users that he died on August 12. Shortly after the error was initially reverted, several temporary accounts briefly readded it before being reverted, and the page has now been temporarily semi protected. The Signpost thanks everyone who works hard to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. Maybe next week these publications will take the opportunity to write about all the correct information on Wikipedia. Let this also serve as a reminder of all the people who rely on our efforts for their information beyond just our direct readers. – M, C

Jimbo continues the tour

On August 16, 2026, Fortune magazine published an interview with Jimmy Wales. It began with asking how Wikipedia supports itself without ads. (Meanwhile, editors are discussing removing the donation banners from Wikipedia until the issues with meta:Wiki Workers United are resolved.) Jimbo also highlighted that regular donors are subsidizing the AI companies which use Wikipedia for their training data and discussed known issues with AI in editing. There was also a dose of book promotion. – C

In brief

Alexandra Burke on tour in 2011

Is Grokipedia a museum or an encyclopedia?: A report says that requests to update Grokipedia have been left unanswered for months and the Wikipedia-wannabe's contents have been static since April. Also in Lawfare (the original), Gizmodo, and Boing Boing
Fit for print, but not a musical: Joining critiques of a sci-fi film, a biopic, quasi-fictional biographies of historical figures, documentaries and another biopic, and corporate mass firings covered previously by The Signpost, we now have a musical headlined by Alexandra Burke that is too much like a Wikipedia article (The Telegraph).
Disunion: On the heels of earlier media coverage (see last issue's "In the media"), the International Business Times reported on August 3 that the "Wikimedia Foundation Declines Voluntary Union Recognition as Labor Dispute Grows".
That's a very weird recipe: "Toast, boners, and margarine haters all come together on Wikipedia" (The A.V. Club's "Wiki Wormhole", a feature for Wiki rabbit-holics)
Hats off to you, nerds and pedants: In a review that many Broadway artists would be just fine with, Broadway Baby finds the "nerds and pedants" here, as documented by Depths of Wikipedia, "completely hilarious" and "life-affirming – a celebration of the weird and wonderful nature of the world we live in".
Porn actors get the shaft on Ruwiki: Analysis of deletions, Moscow office hours kept by editors, and other tidbits concerning the Ruwiki state-controlled Wikipedia fork, in a study published by Centre for Economic Policy Research, "The anatomy of censorship and propaganda: What Russia's Wikipedia clone reveals about authoritarian information control".

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit our next edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.

References

^
Multiple sources:
- Singh, Ritu (August 13, 2026). "Google Search Error Shows Sam Altman As Dead, False Claim Traced To Wikipedia". NDTV.
- Vlamis, Kelsey (August 12, 2026). "Google falsely said Sam Altman was dead — and suggested vandalized public sources could be to blame". Business Insider.

← Previous "In the media"

In this issue

24 August 2026 (all comments)

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

The edit falsely claimed that Altman had been assassinated, with the edit reverted 42 minutes later. 42 minutes is far too long. I have recently noticed that vandalism and controversial edits by unregistered accounts have taken much longer for others to revert and restore good versions. In one case that I only caught yesterday, it took a month. Something needs to be done about this. I remember as early as last year that vandalism rarely lasted more than a few minutes due to bots. Have they been deactivated? What has happened to vandalism patrol? Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
the anti-vandalism bot is working, however some edits may get passed through due to fuzzy matching with the algorithms they have. the article in question although has 400+ watchers, it only has 25 active watchers in the last 30 days. This suggests that the article wasn't watched around the clock and 42 minutes in this case is a pretty fast resolution. of course, one can always ask if the algorithm needs updating with the advent of the temporary account feature. – robertsky (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Can we spend more time and resources on bots that focus on vandalism patrol, specifically when major edits come from unregistered accounts with only one edit? This recent edit lasted almost a month until I reverted it. The edit consisted of a revert to a version from a year ago that was filled with errors and fabrication. Nobody caught it. My working hypothesis is that the SPA runs one of the bad sites in the reverted edit that were no longer receiving traffic after they were removed. IOW, they were using Wikipedia as a webhost, and the reverts were a way to restore their lost ad revenue. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Usually the first sign that someone has died is an anonymous editor making an uncited change. A Bot could detect that this change lacks a reference and revert. We don't have enough editors to watch every biography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Case in point: Dolly Parton. The first edit is from an anon, to the lead sentence, with no supporting citation. [1] This is followed five minutes later by an edit to the infobox from an editor with an account [2] but still no reference. Both of these edits were Bot-detectable and could have been summarily reverted under WP:BLP. Although in this case the information was correct, false reports are all too common. Seconds later, we get a reference at last from a third editor [3] although it is poorly formatted and incorrectly added to the lead. Followed by another anon edit to the Infobox. Soon we get an edit to the short description [4]. And more editing of the Infobox [5]. Still no editing of the body though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I bet that the people who make the earliest "RIP" edit for a person who has just died typically don't dare spend a minute to cite the news article that they learned it from because it's probable that somebody else (another reference-less anon) will "scoop" them during that minute, and they are seeking the tiny thrill of being first to the buzzer. The same people who comment the word "first" on a YouTube video lol. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Our article-to-editor ratio is getting worse and worse. We need more editors. And maybe more merges? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I understand, but my larger argument is that automation should be used more and more instead of editors to preserve article stability. We are already on the decline, but this isn't a problem specific to Wikipedia but to reading books and writing in general. In the US, the number of people reading as a leisure activity is less than half, with more people gambling instead. Our current president has admitted to reading only one book in the last 30 years (and I don't think I need to tell you which one it is). We need to recognize that both reading and writing is driving this decline and to focus on it as a niche to attract those who still do it. As a side project, we can also promote reading and writing elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Some time ago I remember making a joke about putting "Viriditas bringing up American politics when no one was talking about American politics" on a bingo card, but I don't remember where I said that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In the US, the decline of reading was a deliberate political act, the result of the defunding of education and the humanities in favor of STEM fields, which then promoted social media technologies which has been detrimental to the diminishing of human attention and reading comprehension. It is also a truism that whenever someone says "let's not get political", they are taking a position that favors the status quo. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So the Space Race was a cabal to dumb down voters. Or maybe it was even earlier. Wow, those guys had real foresight. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A lot has been written about how the so-called space race was distorted after JFK was killed. JFK's original idea was for the Russians and the US to work together in peace to build a better future together. Congress wouldn't have it, and the space race went nowhere after the Moon landings, with many of the scientists involved transitioning into other fields. It was a lost opportunity for world peace that was squandered, and the money that was used was taken from the Great Society programs that were never funded. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Imagine if NASA kept its loony budget from the 1960s and 1970s. It would have over $200 billion dollars annually today. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't have to imagine it. I've read and written extensively about it. It has been a special interest of mine since I was seven years old, when I received an autographed photo from an astronaut. However, I only support a civilian space program whose interest is primarily science that helps people, not the military and the warfare it engenders. And please don't lecture me in a response pointing out the benefits of spin-off technologies as the same benefit can be had from fully funding scientific research without focusing on how to kill people. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Also important is how closely editors look at changes. I often find that I cannot determine whether an edit needs to be reverted (vandalism or good faith incorrect content) without finding and reading appropriate sources. While I look forward to the benefits of further automation in Wikipedia, there are still going to be plenty of cases that require editor investigation and judgment. Donald Albury 14:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I mean, the death of Sam Altman should pretty obviously go one way or the other based off a single Google Search. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe. Deaths are often not announced to the media for days or even weeks, but we often get anonymous insiders posting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Are anonymous insiders the same kind of people who claimed Mitch McConnell died? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I want to echo what Hawkeye7 said. I have worked extensively on dozens of bios whose sources strangely only reported their deaths many months after they died. And, as if that wasn't enough, I have worked on dozens of bios whose sources never reported their deaths. FWIW, I discussed this problem on the refdesk a while back and several people had a theory about it. I don't recall the outcome (without looking) but I think I remember someone saying this was the result of newspaper cutbacks and the demise of obituaries in general. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Grokipedia does this much better. Dolly Parton is still alive, there. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"She's alive, Jim." Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Speaking of Dolly Parton, this was some nice coverage: Dolly Parton’s Wikipedia Photo Changed Overnight—and Fans Think They Know Why. Compared to the swastika thing, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

It's not the article to editor ratio that matters. It's the editor to vandalism ratio. (Editor is actually a proxy for something like the amount of effort spent watching recent changes and watchlists.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC).reply

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About