I agree we ought to analyze better our situation, before we run to
conclusions and discuss remedies
Swwp has seen a decrease in traffic like others but in June we have seen
an increase even if we include only accesses from mobiles (at least
for June)
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/sv.wikipedia.org/reading/total-page-views/normal|bar|2-year|(agent)~user|monthly
What we have seen more clearly though is that accesses of the most read
articles per day in decreasing.
We have also more subjectively from media, and social media seen a
growing skepticism toward AI-generated results and an increase in the
trust of Wikipedia results
Our general conclusions this far are
*We are doing well in our core encyclopedic articles (like of
administrative divisions within a country) , but less well in newslike
articles (which the internet readers asks more frequently, but where
newswebsites always been stronger). And we should concentrate our
efforts where we are strong
*We are in a late stage in our general product life cycle and must
accept this. We will never have the increase in editors etc like we hade
15 yeas ago, but must do what we can do thrive in a this mode. For us -
less angry internal argument, partially done by avoiding articles of
infected subjects like Israel-Palestine
And for Google Zero. I believe it is them who has a problem not us.
Early on, and still, all new PC user were forced into Microsoft Edge and
Bing which lead us to Firefox and Google. Google zero as I see will
lead to an exodus från Google, there are many other search engines that
works fine
Wikipedia is great
Anders
Den 2026-07-09 kl. 08:35, skrev Kimmo Virtanen via Wikimedia-l:
Hi,
Secondly, I'd love to see initiative outside of enwiki. If you
look at all the ~1000 Wikimedia projects, almost all of them are
seeing an increase in traffic ; only a few big old wikipedias are
seeing a decrease (which are also the ones with the most
traffic, hence why it's more visible but it obfuscate at the big
picture)
Based on stats total pageviews of human users of all wikis are dropping
-https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/total-page-views/normal|bar|all|(agent)~user|monthly
<https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/total-page-views/normal%7Cbar%7Call%7C(agent)~user%7Cmonthly>
Br,
-- Kimmo Virtanen, Zache
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 9:13 AM Nicolas VIGNERON via Wikimedia-l
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi y'all,
First could someone remind me how much traffic comes from Google
(I have a vague memory from last year that this is already very
low - maybe 10 or 20 % - and that LLMs are already bringing more
traffic to Wikipedia, if true we essentially are at Google Zero
already).
Secondly, I'd love to see initiative outside of enwiki. If you
look at all the ~1000 Wikimedia projects, almost all of them are
seeing an increase in traffic ; only a few big old wikipedias are
seeing a decrease (which are also the ones with the most
traffic, hence why it's more visible but it obfuscate at the big
picture).
I think we should start by looking at and learning from the
"successful" projects instead of focusing on the declining ones.
For instance, Wikisources always have been badly to not-at-all
referenced by Google and yet there is a strong increase in
pageviews recently.
Cheers,
Nicolas
Le jeu. 9 juil. 2026 à 03:38, Michael Snow via Wikimedia-l
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On 7/8/2026 12:52 PM, Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l wrote:
> - Scale of impact is important, but it isn’t everything.
Sometimes
> we’ll have to build things without knowing if they’ll scale,
or even
> perhaps knowing that they won’t scale (eg Depths of
Wikipedia is one
> of the best community-builders we have even though it has
“only” a few
> million followers). “That’s good but it won’t scale to
enwiki” can
> never be allowed to be a blocker for anyone. If the
experiment is
> actually great, then we’ll figure out a way to get it onto
enwiki. Or
> not! That shouldn’t stop people.
At this point, no single initiative (whether community,
chapter, or
WMF-led) will have an inherent capacity to scale to enwiki. To
do so
would require corporate-style resources with a corresponding
top-down
mandate for implementation, and risk (rightly) triggering
resistance to
the point of launching a true durable fork, for once. Instead,
the best
approach would be to find ideas that are good enough to
propagate,
encourage them, and when they have propagated enough, they
will scale
with relatively little intervention needed.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/6EQOFSG34E3BC6FIYL55HYBTQBAW4XFN/
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4WPCSTZNDMBDMYHWHV27BN2EZLGY5LXB/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected], guidelines
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/W24PTVEX2A7YSR4YNHIUQTCGMAIMF2S3/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/XEKWEBKCXK2V4B3M2JSVFF4E53CWOKI3/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
