Anton Obozhyn, a Kyiv-based Ukrainian programmer and longtime Wikipedian, sits at the intersection of open knowledge and wartime reality. A computer science graduate working in game development, he has contributed to Wikimedia projects since 2014 and taken on an increasingly prominent leadership role within Wikimedia Ukraine, where he now serves as deputy chair.

In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Obozhyn about the inner workings of Wikipedia at a moment when truth itself is contested terrain. From edit wars and coordinated public-relations manipulation to legal pressures and funding realities, Obozhyn outlines how the platform’s volunteer-driven model holds up under strain. The discussion takes on added urgency in the context of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has thinned the ranks of contributors, disrupted infrastructure, and flooded the information space with disinformation. What emerges is a portrait of Wikipedia not as a static repository of facts, but as a living system—fragile, resilient, and constantly under negotiation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which topics tend to generate the most intense disputes on Wikipedia, and what makes them so difficult to resolve?

Anton Obozhyn: There are many such topics. They are usually political or historical, where disagreements are more likely. One common issue is an “edit war,” where one editor adds content, another removes or changes it, and the cycle repeats. This can continue until an administrator intervenes.

Each article also has a discussion page, often called a “talk page,” where editors debate what should be included and how it should be presented. For controversial topics, these discussions can become extensive, sometimes running very long, reflecting ongoing disagreements about content and interpretation.

Jacobsen: Is there a single article—rather than a category—that stands out as especially contentious in Wikipedia’s history?

Obozhyn: If I recall correctly, one of the most heavily edited and disputed articles in the English-language Wikipedia has been about George W. Bush. It has accumulated tens of thousands of edits and has experienced frequent edit conflicts. However, that should be verified, as I may be mistaken.

On the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, many contentious articles concern history, particularly topics related to the Second World War and the Soviet period. These subjects often involve strong disagreements and differing interpretations.

We also encounter attempts by public relations representatives working on behalf of celebrities or politicians to influence articles. They may try to remove criticism or add favorable but unsupported claims. The Wikipedia community actively monitors and addresses such behavior, so there is an ongoing effort to counter these interventions.

Jacobsen: What role do paid staff within the Wikimedia Foundation and its affiliates actually play, particularly in relation to content creation?

Obozhyn: Both the Wikimedia Foundation and local chapters have paid staff. However, these staff members are generally not responsible for editing Wikipedia content. Their roles focus on maintaining the infrastructure, supporting the platform, and ensuring the platform’s overall functionality.

System administrators and engineers maintain the hardware infrastructure of Wikipedia. The platform operates on servers where all content is stored and accessed when users visit the site.

There are also lawyers who handle legal matters, including complaints and lawsuits involving Wikipedia. In addition, there are specialists who focus on supporting and improving the community by gathering feedback and implementing it at the Wikimedia Foundation level.

Local chapters also employ and contract with employees and contractors. For example, at Wikimedia Ukraine, contractors help implement projects such as article contests and educational programs. These roles include project managers, communications managers, coordinators for initiatives such as Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments, and a Wikipedia-in-education manager. There are also operational roles, such as an accountant and an office manager. These individuals support Wikipedia’s functioning but do not edit its content as part of their employment.

Jacobsen: Wikipedia famously relies on public donations, but what does its broader funding ecosystem look like today?

Obozhyn: The primary source of funding is the general public. From time to time, Wikipedia displays donation banners because it relies on these contributions. Unlike many websites, Wikipedia does not run advertisements.

In addition to individual donors, contributions come from large organizations and, in some cases, from governmental or institutional grants. For example, Google has been a significant supporter.

There is also a relatively new initiative called Wikimedia Enterprise. Through this service, technology companies can pay for high-volume access to Wikimedia data. Normally, users can request data at a limited rate, but companies that require large-scale access—for example, for use in digital products or machine learning systems—can pay for expanded access. This has become an additional source of revenue.

At the same time, there are ongoing discussions within the Wikimedia Foundation and the broader Wikimedia movement about diversifying income sources. This includes seeking a wider range of donors and applying for grants. For instance, Wikimedia Ukraine has received grant funding from the Swedish government for specific projects.

Overall, donations remain the primary source of funding, but there is a clear effort to diversify revenue streams.

Jacobsen: When legal challenges arise—especially around defamation or biographical content—how are they handled, and how often do they succeed?

Obozhyn: Legal matters are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has a dedicated legal department. Even when a local chapter, such as Wikimedia Ukraine, is named in a lawsuit, the case is typically redirected to the Foundation.

Local chapters generally do not control Wikipedia’s content, which is created and maintained by the volunteer community. As a result, claims—such as defamation complaints—are usually addressed at the Foundation level.

From time to time, individuals object to how they are described in Wikipedia articles and may attempt legal action. However, such cases often fail, as Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sources and has established processes for reviewing and correcting content.

There is a structured system in place to evaluate and verify information included in articles, which supports its legal and editorial integrity.

In biographical articles, if there is any doubt about a fact, it is not included. We make a particular effort to ensure that biographical content is accurate and verifiable.

However, this does not always satisfy everyone. For example, if a politician has been implicated in corruption and there is strong, reliable evidence from credible sources, that information will be included in the article. There is little basis for removing such material if it meets Wikipedia’s standards. As a result, some politicians and public figures object to how they are represented.

Jacobsen: From a Ukrainian perspective, how has the war reshaped Wikipedia’s editor community and its ability to function?

Obozhyn: We have faced many challenges. First, many editors joined the armed forces, which has significantly reduced the time they can dedicate to Wikipedia. Some are serving in active combat zones, where stable Internet access is not guaranteed.

Others were forced to evacuate with their families to other countries. They have had to rebuild their lives—learning new languages, finding employment, and adapting to unfamiliar environments. Under such conditions, contributing to Wikipedia often becomes a lower priority.

As a result, we are experiencing a decline in the number of active editors.

There have also been infrastructure challenges. During the winter, power outages have disrupted access to electricity and the Internet. Even when electricity is available for limited periods, people must prioritize essential tasks—such as work and household responsibilities—before contributing to Wikipedia.

All of this has made sustained participation in Wikipedia editing more difficult during wartime.

Another challenge during blackouts was that editing Wikipedia became difficult. Limited access to electricity and the Internet significantly reduced participation.

A third major issue arose at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. There was a large volume of disinformation—some spread unintentionally by individuals lacking complete information, and some deliberately disseminated by Russian sources for strategic purposes. Verifying facts in that environment was extremely difficult, and this remains a challenge for the community.

In addition, several Wikipedia editors have been killed as a result of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. These were individuals who contributed to the platform—writing and improving articles—and their loss is deeply felt within the community.

Jacobsen: Do we have any reliable sense of how many contributors have been lost to the war?

Obozhyn: There are several cases that Wikimedia Ukraine is aware of, but we believe the actual number is higher. Many contributors edit anonymously or do not formally associate themselves with Wikimedia Ukraine, so some losses may go undocumented.

Jacobsen: What does the Wikimedia Ukraine community look like today in terms of membership, active editors, and administrators?

Obozhyn: Wikimedia Ukraine currently has approximately 60 to 70 formal members.

Jacobsen: How many editors and administrators are there?

Obozhyn: There are roughly one thousand active editors in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, although that figure should be verified. As for administrators, there are several dozen.

More precisely, there are currently around 40-50 administrators on the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia. The English-language Wikipedia has significantly more administrators due to its much larger global user base, including contributors from countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Nigeria, and many others where English is widely used.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Anton.