A new study by Semrush, comparing how ChatGPT and Google’s AI Mode cite information across five industries — finance, digital technology, business services, consumer electronics and fashion — found that AI models consistently favour community-driven sources such as Wikipedia and Reddit over official material.
Wikipedia was the top or second most cited source in four out of five sectors, while Reddit outperformed traditional financial experts 176% of the time in finance-related prompts. Microsoft, Apple and other household names found their blogs and product pages cited less frequently than community discussions or neutral encyclopaedia entries.
The findings also carry a message for news publishers. While the study did not look at journalism directly, the conclusion that AI models elevate community consensus over established expertise will give publishers pause. It raises the question of whether carefully reported, professional news risks being displaced in AI summaries by crowd-sourced content that feels more “objective” to the model.
AI companies of course claim this is not the case, but which sources they favour will be an ongoing conversation.
Semrush notes that only a fraction of the most-mentioned brands in AI responses are treated as trusted sources for factual citation, suggesting that what AI mentions and what it leans on as evidence are not the same. Google AI Mode still privileges some commercial sources, but ChatGPT leans heavily on community forums.
For publishers, the implications echo current fears about declining referral traffic: even if journalism continues to be quoted and discussed, there is no guarantee it will be cited as the factual backbone of AI answers. That distinction matters for visibility, authority and revenue.
The study recommends that brands adapt by maintaining precise, factual entries on community-driven sites, participating in relevant discussions and producing structured, authoritative content that AI models can recognise and trust. For newsrooms, the lesson may be similar — that alongside strong reporting, there is now a parallel need to understand how information circulates in AI environments and to ensure journalistic work is structured in ways machines can surface.
As AI reshapes search behaviour, publishers face a double challenge: protecting their content from being displaced by less rigorous sources, and learning the new rules of discoverability in a system that no longer resembles traditional SEO.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative presents recent findings from Semrush’s AI Visibility Index, published in August 2025. The study analyses AI search visibility across various industries and platforms, indicating a high freshness score. No evidence suggests that this content has been previously published or recycled. The report is based on original research, providing new insights into AI search dynamics. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative does not include direct quotes, relying instead on summarised findings from Semrush’s study. This approach suggests originality and exclusivity in the content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from Semrush, a reputable organisation known for its expertise in digital marketing and SEO analytics. Semrush’s AI Visibility Index is a credible source, enhancing the reliability of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are consistent with current trends in AI search and digital marketing. The study’s findings align with other industry analyses, supporting the plausibility of the reported shifts in AI search visibility. The language and tone are appropriate for the subject matter, and the content is free from excessive or off-topic details.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative presents original, recent findings from a reputable source, Semrush, with no evidence of recycled content or discrepancies. The information is plausible and aligns with current industry trends, supporting a high confidence in its accuracy.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
