[tyingq]

I won't call it dead, but it is declining. Their various sources of traffic are now regurgitating Wikipedia Content (and other 3rd party sources) via uncited/unlinked AI "blurbs"...instead of presenting snippets of Wikipedia contents with links to Wikipedia to read more.

It's not the only reason their traffic is declining, but it seems like a big one.

[WD-42]

Who cares if the traffic is declining? I don’t find Wikipedia useful because it gets lots of visits, I find it useful for the information it contains.

[jowea]

The problem has more to do with editors. The theory is that less visits leads to less editors in the long run.

[WD-42]

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the people that edit Wikipedia are the same people that are content with half truths from LLMs and thus no longer visiting the site. So I kinda doubt it matters much.

[baq]

That’s certainly true for stack overflow, but in their case the moderators were very active in getting the negative feedback loop going.

[reddalo]

Also, Stack Overflow is a commercial website, while Wikipedia is a free (as in freedom) project. Editing Wikipedia feels like you're contributing towards "an ideal", that you're giving back something to humanity, instead of just helping somebody else getting richer.

[tyingq]

Visits drive revenue. Declining traffic is declining revenue. Not an issue yet, but eventually...

[Ray20]

I saw statistics somewhere that Wikipedia ALREADY has enough money for centuries of work (if it stops spending them on promoting wokeism).

[bawolff]

People have been talking about wikipedia's decline since like 2008. It seems fine.

[falcor84]

That's just plain old citogenesis[0][1], and has been in play for at least two decades, so I don't think it's any evidence of decline.

[0] https://xkcd.com/978/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...