I won't call it dead, but it is declining. Their various sources of traffic are ...

WD-42 · 2025-09-03T01:09:15 1756861755

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 · 2025-09-03T01:52:38 1756864358

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

WD-42 · 2025-09-03T01:59:25 1756864765

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 · 2025-09-03T05:22:43 1756876963

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

reddalo · 2025-09-03T08:56:24 1756889784

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 · 2025-09-03T12:46:36 1756903596

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

Ray20 · 2025-09-03T15:42:42 1756914162

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

bawolff · 2025-09-03T04:00:49 1756872049

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

falcor84 · 2025-09-03T01:23:09 1756862589

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_...