CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Wikipedia Contributions in the Wake of ChatGPT

Lyu, Liang, Siderius, James, Li, Hannah, Acemoglu, Daron, Huttenlocher, Daniel, Ozdaglar, Asuman·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.00757arXiv 2503.00757
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How has Wikipedia activity changed for articles with content similar to ChatGPT following its introduction? We estimate the impact using differences-in-differences models, with dissimilar Wikipedia articles as a baseline for comparison, to examine how changes in voluntary knowledge contributions and information-seeking behavior differ by article content. Our analysis reveals that newly created, popular articles whose content overlaps with ChatGPT 3.5 saw a greater decline in editing and viewership after the November 2022 launch of ChatGPT than dissimilar articles did. These findings indicate heterogeneous substitution effects, where users selectively engage less with existing platforms when AI provides comparable content. This points to potential uneven impacts on the future of human-driven online knowledge contributions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.00757

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Our Diff-in-Diff Methodology. Measuring Wikipedia activity before and after the introduction of ChatGPT for Wikipedia articles that rank similarly and dissimilarly to the same information generated by ChatGPT.
Figure 1 Our Diff-in-Diff Methodology. Measuring Wikipedia activity before and after the introduction of ChatGPT for Wikipedia articles that rank similarly and dissimilarly to the same information generated by ChatGPT.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Mean residuals for each month 𝑡 in which activity occurs, among all observations in O( 6 ) (at most 6 months old), with bootstrapped standard errors with 1000 samples. Dashed lines are mean residuals for similar (blue) and dissimilar (red) articles over the pre-GPT and post-GPT periods respectively. Red vertical line indicates date of ChatGPT launch.
Figure 2 Mean residuals for each month 𝑡 in which activity occurs, among all observations in O( 6 ) (at most 6 months old), with bootstrapped standard errors with 1000 samples. Dashed lines are mean residuals for similar (blue) and dissimilar (red) articles over the pre-GPT and post-GPT periods respectively. Red vertical line indicates date of ChatGPT launch.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Estimated DiD coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (HC1) for recency parameters 𝑇 ∈ { 1 , . . . , 24 } on the 𝑥 -axis, with smoothing factor 𝛼 = 0 . 8 . Each point is from a regression using observations in O( 𝑇 ) . Observations when the article is closer to 𝑇 months old given greater weight.
Figure 3 Estimated DiD coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (HC1) for recency parameters 𝑇 ∈ { 1 , . . . , 24 } on the 𝑥 -axis, with smoothing factor 𝛼 = 0 . 8 . Each point is from a regression using observations in O( 𝑇 ) . Observations when the article is closer to 𝑇 months old given greater weight.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Gordon Burtch, Dokyun Lee, and Zhichen Chen. 2024. The consequences of generative AI for online knowledge communities. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (2024), 10413.
  2. Sumit Kumar Dam, Choong Seon Hong, Yu Qiao, and Chaoning Zhang. 2024. A complete survey on llm-based ai chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16937 (2024). · arXiv
  3. Maria del Rio-Chanona, Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, and Johannes Wachs. 2023. Are Large Language Models a Threat to Digital Public Goods? Evidence from Activity on Stack Overflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07367 (2023). arXiv:2307.07367 [cs.SI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07367 · arXiv
  4. Mark Glickman and Yi Zhang. 2024. AI and generative AI for research discovery and summarization. Harvard Data Science Review 6, 2 (2024).
  5. Sook Lim. 2009. How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the American Society for Information Sci- ence and Technology 60, 11 (2009), 2189-2202. doi:10.1002/asi.21142 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.21142 · DOI
  6. Neal Reeves, Wenjie Yin, and Elena Simperl. 2024. Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia Engagement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10205 (2024). arXiv:2405.10205 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10205 · arXiv
  7. Guohou Shan and Liangfei Qiu. 2023. Examining the impact of generative AI on users' voluntary knowledge contribution: Evidence from a natural experiment on Stack Overflow. Available at SSRN 4462976 (2023).
  8. Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Yiren Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, Ross Anderson, and Yarin Gal. 2024. AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature 631, 8022 (2024), 755-759.
  9. Philipp Singer, Florian Lemmerich, Robert West, Leila Zia, Ellery Wulczyn, Markus Strohmaier, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Why we read Wikipedia. In Pro- ceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. 1591-1600.
  10. Bo Xu and Dahui Li. 2015. An empirical study of the motivations for content con- tribution and community participation in Wikipedia. Information & Management 52, 3 (2015), 275-286. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.12.003 · DOI
  11. Heng-Li Yang and Cheng-Yu Lai. 2010. Motivations of Wikipedia content con- tributors. Computers in human behavior 26, 6 (2010), 1377-1383.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lyu, L., Siderius, J., Li, H., Acemoglu, D., Huttenlocher, D., & Ozdaglar, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.00757
arXiv
2503.00757
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review