Thought provoking item at Times of Israel blogs [1] which contains this passage
At this point, there is nothing meaningful left to do within Wikipedia. The platform is designed to be unresponsive once narratives harden, and engagement drains energy without changing outcomes. The appearance of neutrality masks a system that rewards coordination and persistence, not accuracy.
— Times of Israel
I found this interesting because it mirrors something we posted recently but from a writer who would probably be described as supporting the opposite side of the IPA issue. Their exposition (expanded from what we printed before) is strikingly similar.
[Admin-imposed restrictions are] presented as neutral conflict management, but they function asymmetrically. They privilege editors already embedded in the system, fluent in policy, and disciplined in the rhetorical norms of "neutrality," while disadvantaging [outsiders] ... Crucially, these mechanisms do not decide who is right. They decide what can safely be said. ... Wikipedia often treats stability as if it were consensus. Stability reflects the moment at which procedural tools have halted further change...
The ToI blogs are a very mixed bag and really no better than Substack or any other kind of blog. In this specific case, the writer is simply making things up – his assertion that nobody was speaking of "Palestinians" back around the time of King Abdullah's assassination can be shown to be false in five minutes via a Google Books search restricted to pre-1960 results. Examples: [2][3]. It's not worth covering. AndreasJN46609:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of media coverage has appeared about a "Wikipedia doomscrolling app"? I can't figure out what our angle will be. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of Xikipedia - it's meant to be art/commentary on modern social media algorithms. Though, I'm working on turning it into an actual app (pwa) now. Not a very serious project, but also not a joke. Rebane2001 (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had 2 or 3 reactions to the story.
Why use the Simple English wiki version instead of enWiki?
See The 1st In brief mention in this ITM story about Wiki Toc. What's different about this one. We're not here to advertise, but if there were a comparison in the media about the two, it would be worth including.
I used Simple English wiki because it's way smaller - this means the entire dataset can be downloaded and the algorithm run locally, so that privacy can be preserved and the website/app can be used fully offline.
The main difference from WikiTok is that Xikipedia is algorithmic, that is, the feed adjusts based on which "posts" you like and which you don't. It is not just calling the Wikipedia api to show you random articles. The algorithm is described in the GitHub readme.
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
