This month, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has celebrated its 25th anniversary. The platform is still quite popular, it is estimated that around 7 billion unique users visit the page with more than 25 billion pageviews, even though some of the traffic is influenced by AI chatbots. Recently, competitors were mentioned in a social media post, and this brought attention to the milestone.
Let us talk about it shortly. A quarter of a century has gone by. That’s even more than the age of some Fortnite players, which is a rather astonishing thought. Therefore, Wikipedia could be referred to as the grandpa of the internet, and, nevertheless, it still manages to get billions of visits monthly. The most remarkable thing that everyone emphasizes is the fact that it is still ad-free, which has become a rare thing to find in 2024. No ads for Shadow Legends, no weird pop-ups, just information. In fact, this is what they want it to be.
The funding model is, however, going through a transformation. Of course, the big fundraisers are still happening where Jimmy Wales is almost pleading with you through the screen with those eyes. But, at the same time, there is now this whole other area let’s say, AI licensing deals. The big players, like, you know, the very big ones have been paying Wikipedia to utilize its data for training their chatbots and other applications. This is indeed a radical change. It’s as if the encyclopedia is the one feeding the very machines that might be taking away its traffic. A bit of irony right there, isn’t it? One comment on the post really pointed it out perfectly, saying this is not just a birthday party – it’s a “liquidation sale.” Harsh, but you have to admit it communicates a feeling.
On the same issue of traffic, the numbers are outrageous. 7 billion unique visitors? 25 billion page views? That is more than just students looking for answers to their homework. The thoughts and opinions from the comments section are really spicy: a lot of that might not even be *us* at all. One user said that the “small percentage is from real human views” while the rest are AI bots and web scrapers always monitoring the site for data. So, when we celebrate those big numbers, who are we really celebrating? The people or the machines? Makes you wonder.
The debate in the gaming section of the internet, which, let’s face it, is where a lot of us virtual dwellers are, was very divided. It’s a total split decision. On the one hand, there are people who are expressing their love for the site as the greatest of all time “Wikipedia is still the GOAT 🐐” and giving kudos to the resource for its efficiency. For gamers, it is the first place for lore deep-dives, character backstories, patch note histories, and so on. When else will you get a detailed breakdown of the entire Elder Scrolls timeline at 2 AM?
But at the same time, on the other side… oh my, they have a different view. The criticisms were fast and harsh. “Fuck Wikipedia,” was one very blunt comment that followed the old academic rule of never citing it. Others called it “captured” and “pure propaganda” depending on the issue. There were jokes about donation banners creating urgency just like a streamer’s subscriber begging-a-thon. And, of course, political digs came back with comments on bias, which is using a different argument in an already existing debate that every online community fights about.
An intriguing name that appeared frequently in the replies was “Grokipedia.” Apparently, there is a new, supposed rival that some people are talking about as the Wikipedia killer. “Grokipedia will finally take it down,” one user tweeted. But, seriously, have you ever even *tried* it? Is it worth it? Or is it just another case of people getting upset because it’s new and different from the old thing? The internet loves an underdog story until the underdog actually has to perform.
What surprises me, as a games writer, is that Wikipedia is the first source that game developers and other stakeholders check for the latest updates and changes in the gaming world. When a new game is released, where do the wiki editors rush to first? Fandom? Sometimes. But the real backbone of stable and factual basic info for a lot of games often starts on Wikipedia. It’s a tool. A flawed, messy, human tool. The fact that it has survived 25 years without selling our eyeballs to advertisers is a minor miracle. But the fact that it may have to sell our collective writing to AI companies for its future? That’s a whole new type of battle.
It demonstrates that the digital landscape we all share is changing. The platforms we use for information, community, and everything else are being transformed into raw material for the next big tech.
