Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What do you mean? It's one of the most popular sites




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.


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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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_...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: