Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 464 posts

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#221

Post by Levitz »

pastage wrote: post #116
Okx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem interested in this. Their revenue is more than enough be able to invest and sustain the site forever, but they just increase expenses on non-core outgoings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER

You pay for Wikipedia because you want it to prosper. The political part of Wikipedia is vital to make it succeed. Even though everyone uses Wikipedia not everyone knows why it succeeded and why it is important. The fluff is important to have a engaged super users. It is also important to get acceptance in certain circles.

Can you make the case as to why we should want a political, super user based version of Wikipedia to prosper?

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#222

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

kapone wrote: post #214
irjustin wrote: post #3

I'll go out on a limb and say we _need_ Wikipedia and it's okay that traffic falls. Physical print encyclopedias got replaced by Wikipedia, but AI isn't a replacement (can't ever see how either). While AI is a method of easier access for the end user, the purpose of Wikipedia stands on its own. I've always scoffed at the Wikimedia Foundation's warchest and continuously increasing annual spending. I say now is the tim…

That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.

What about reciprocal cooperation with countries around the world? Foundation invests in country bonds, countries include small yearly payments (like dividends?) to the foundation.

There is more and more of these "essential global infrastructure" projects, many of them non-profit, yet I'm not sure we're seeing a lot of investment from the globe into those projects.

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#223

Post by sys_64738 »

olalonde wrote: post #149
sys_64738 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL I just tried to search "U2" on it but it sent me to a Twitter post. That Twitter post required me to login to see if I wanted to see it. What a joke.

It hasn't launched yet.

The webpage was there which is what I tried last night. Is it gone?

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#224

Post by tim333 »

kapone wrote: post #214
irjustin wrote: post #3

I'll go out on a limb and say we _need_ Wikipedia and it's okay that traffic falls. Physical print encyclopedias got replaced by Wikipedia, but AI isn't a replacement (can't ever see how either). While AI is a method of easier access for the end user, the purpose of Wikipedia stands on its own. I've always scoffed at the Wikimedia Foundation's warchest and continuously increasing annual spending. I say now is the tim…

That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.

Land has been a solid investment for over a thousand years. Going forward index investing normally does ok.

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#225

Post by johnnyApplePRNG »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #219
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #216

AI helped me realize why I have always read and referred to Wikipedia so little. Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is a GREAT resource that the world absolutely needs. But it's a horribly boring "read" when it comes to human consumption. It's an encyclopedia. A list of facts. When I want to learn something about a particular topic, I rarely ever want to read a list of facts.

> But it's a horribly boring "read" when it comes to human consumption. I couldn't possibly disagree more. The website I visit most often after Reddit and HN is Wikipedia, and I often spend hours just diving through article after article. Learning facts is fun .

Learning facts is extremely fun.

It's just not fun reading them as a list of facts.

I am not a computer. I enjoy reading prose.

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#226

Post by FireBeyond »

Diederich wrote: post #145
supportengineer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, any writes are reverted within seconds by the gatekeepers, but sure, ok.

Of the dozens of contributions I've made over the decades, some recent, either zero or one of them have been reverted.

Some of the garbage I've been involved with that I either had to avoid or bail out of an edit or revert war:

* A claim on "Fisting" that "seasoned fisters can insert their arm up to the shoulder into the anus", "supported" by a deleted PornHub video.

* Fighting on a Production Car top ten list when Tesla announced that Ludicrous Mode was coming the next year and "expected" to have certain performance stats, where multiple editors fell over each other to make sure it stayed at the top of the list, even when they eventually had to add a column just for Tesla where every other result had "Actual Results" and the Tesla had "Projected/Expected Results".

* A collation of John Deere tractors that described multiple models as "light years ahead of the competition".

* An article on an Australian drug smuggler where exhibits from court case were being removed as "biased".

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#227

Post by kapone »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #222
kapone wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.

What about reciprocal cooperation with countries around the world? Foundation invests in country bonds, countries include small yearly payments (like dividends?) to the foundation. There is more and more of these "essential global infrastructure" projects, many of them non-profit, yet I'm not sure we're seeing a lot of investment from the globe into those projects.

Country bonds?? Have you looked at what they pay?

You’re not seeing investment into these kinds of “essential global infrastructure “ projects, because there are NO such things.

We can’t even agree on what “global” means.

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#228

Post by kapone »

tim333 wrote: post #224
kapone wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.

Land has been a solid investment for over a thousand years. Going forward index investing normally does ok.

So, now you want the likes of the Wikipedia foundation to become a rent seeking landlord??

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#229

Post by Levitz »

TheRoque wrote: post #182
tines wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bias cant be avoided, only made explicit This is so untrue and this is a harmful belief. And I'm pretty much as liberal as they come.

It's true though, it's literally how your brain works. It's full of biases.

Yes, biases which ideally you are aware of and try to account for.

For example, it would be stupid for me to entirely dismiss all of Wikipedia just because I know that there are some horribly biased articles and it'd be a disgrace if I shrugged such behavior off saying "hey, we all have biases, can't help it". That's what a child or even an animal would do.

Re: Wikipedia says traffic is falling due to AI search summaries and social video

#230

Post by kapone »

portaouflop wrote: post #217
kapone wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very naive view. WHAT should the Wikimedia foundation invest in, that's viable for a thousand years? That requires a Wall St/hedge fund and/or Buffett mindset. The Wikimedia foundation is none of those, and they're not big enough to make even a ripple in the investment landscape.

Invest a little bit in everything / cut all the useless staff and just focus on longevity of the encyclopaedia it’s certainly doable but requires selfless dedication at the top

“Selfless” - what world are you living in??

Money rules. There’s no ifs and buts about it.

If it doesn’t have a reasonable rate of return, nobody gives a shit.

Post reply on HN