Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
In a deeply divided world, Wikipedia allows people everywhere seeking information on nearly any topic to find a single page of agreed-upon facts — complete with citations.
Yes, but: For that to happen, an often-fierce debate takes place on the talk pages behind every encyclopedia entry, where people argue over just how the topic should be addressed.
Why it matters: Wikipedia has long established itself as one of the most accessible, widely read and trusted sources for information on subjects ranging from the mundane to the highly controversial. The sharper partisan rifts around the world grow, the more valuable that becomes.
Between the lines: Somewhat counterintuitively, the more people who disagree about a topic, the more neutral Wikipedia's entry on the topic tends to be, says Maryana Iskander, who took over as head of the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia's parent organization) in January.
How it works: For every page offering factual information on a topic, a publicly available "talk" page one click away allows visitors to suggest everything from word changes to additional information that should be included, and to debate the accuracy and fairness of the content.
Wikipedia also brings extra levels of care to especially sensitive topics.
The big picture: Wikipedia has become a model for how crowdsourced knowledge can function even in a divided and polarized world. Harvard Business Review used it as a case study for a 2016 article.
Between the lines: Shane Greenstein, a Harvard Business School professor who co-authored the 2016 article and has studied Wikipedia extensively, says that the way entries and changes are handled tends to drive away those who are looking to present only one viewpoint on an issue.
Dive in: It's worth looking at how Wikipedia has navigated some of the thorniest topics of the moment.
Abortion: Wikipedia specifically doesn't offer medical advice, so it doesn't get into the specifics of, say, how to perform an abortion, an area that could become even more fraught as some seek to criminalize providing such information.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: The Wikipedia article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false.
Yes, but: Wikipedia isn't invulnerable to manipulation, but that happens more often on less controversial topics.
Wikipedia has also long been criticized for the fact that contributions are made overwhelmingly by men.
What's next: In an era where misinformation has become a weapon of authoritarian governments, Wikipedia has become a target.