Do we know anything about readership of Commons and Wikidata as such? I guess most human traffic on Commons and Wikidata comes from Wikipedias. Then the huge part of the trafic are various kinds of machine mass data harvesters.
For Wikidata and Commons the vast majority of "readership" is indirect. So, If one imagines a world without Wikipedia but with Wikidata/Commons - there will be a huge problem with the financial sustainability of these projects. For sure the model of financing should have been completely different. Number of human devoted editors of Wikidata is roughly around 250 people, so, from this POV this project is of the size of one medium-size Wikipedia. There are 3 times more Wikimedia Foundation employees than Wikidata devoted editors. Or - if compared with other mainy data/technology driven open source projects it would be much smaller in terms of human users/contributors than mastodon.org or nextcloud. For Commons without Wikipedias - there might be a hope to reshape it into the largest stock of well curated pictures available under free licences, but the issue is that Commons is a mess in terms of quality and searchability of its content. To become an independent. self sustainable project it should very deeply reshape its readership experience which is terrible in comparison with other freely available stocks of pictures. wt., 1 wrz 2026 o 15:21 Felipe Schenone via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> napisał(a): > Hi Christophe, thanks for keeping this important talk alive. > > Wikipedia is declining, but Wikidata and Commons are growing. I now think > the future of the movement lies in those two projects. > To move forward and go far, we shouldn't row against the current or force > the engine. We should keep ourselves light, raise sails, and catch the wind. > I, for one, have already shifted my focus to those projects. > > Also, Wikidata and Commons have a few *major* technical advantages: > - Less wikitext, more structured content, which allows for simpler, better > interfaces. > - One wiki, many languages. No million templates to rebuild, forked > modules to sync, diverse configs to juggle, scattered gadgets to > criss-cross, etc. (Thanks to Produnto that might get better at Wikipedia > soon, though. Fingers crossed.) > > Kind regards, > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2026 at 3:28 PM Samuel Klein via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Christophe -- Thanks for the full writeup! Fantastic and much needed. >> I've been following the individual threads and agree with the note that we >> should be sourcing, protecting, and investing in editors. (who themselves >> care about readership, the mission, and how the projects will benefit >> future and current society). >> >> Detailed proposals like this with partial implementations are the way; we >> need to test out many more of them to find the most promising next >> threads. Which also may not be the same in every community. >> >> Hotly, S >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2026 at 12:24 PM Christophe Henner via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Starting a new thread. I know Sunday evening can be long and uneventful, >>> so I decided to come bearing the gift of a follow-up to my January essay: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/what-now-2-data-strikes-back >>> >>> I tried to make it shorter... and failed. But this time I crafted a >>> tl;dr, which I'll share here in parts. >>> >>> tl;dr: the situation is worse than what you think, we need to close >>> ranks and make choices and act fast. >>> >>> In January I shared a projection taking into account internet growth >>> against our own trends, and where it was probably leading us. With a >>> "conclusion" that we would probably lose half of our traffic in 3 to 5 >>> years. >>> >>> Good news, I was wrong. >>> >>> Bad news, it will most probably be sooner than that: depending on the >>> assumptions, between 2.3 and 4.4 years. And this doesn't include the worst >>> case scenario with a steep decline acceleration. >>> >>> Back in January I also shared my concern that the readership decline >>> would hit editorship with a lag, and hard. Well, you've guessed it, here it >>> comes. The lag is around one month on casual contributors and eight months >>> on the core, and we're now at almost a 4% yearly decrease on the most >>> engaged contributors, and between -5% and -11% on the least engaged, under >>> 25 edits a month. >>> >>> So, where does that leave us? Readership decline has crossed -15% year >>> on year. The decline rate has got worse in 28 months out of the last 30. >>> Editorship decline is worsening month over month. >>> >>> And because bad news travels in groups: edit numbers are increasing. >>> Good news? Nope. It means the work not done by the people who moved on is >>> being picked up by the most engaged people in our communities. Which is the >>> recipe for more burnout and more people leaving, creating a very dangerous >>> loop. One would say we already started it. >>> >>> Of course we can wait a few more months to see the data confirm the >>> trends. Sadly, I'm pretty confident, again, it will. >>> >>> All that being said, the question is what we can do. A few things are >>> solely in the hands of the Foundation, and I hope they'll act. But a lot of >>> things are in the hands of everyone else. >>> >>> First, the situation itself. We need to create a shared sense of where >>> we're standing. That's what I'm trying to do with these emails. But more >>> often than not I read people saying "it doesn't matter that we lose >>> readers". Maybe they're right. I think not. But unless we build consent >>> around the situation, everything after that is going to be tough, slow and >>> depleting much needed energy. Because we are lacking any mechanism to >>> create consent, we're scattered around and stretched thin just trying to >>> have discussions. Which leads me to... >>> >>> Second, we need a "place" to build consent. Following a meeting two >>> months ago, I've been working on formalising a "campaign" to test new ways >>> of building that shared picture: Next 25. >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Next_25 there is a proposal, a few >>> examples and some data already on the Meta page. >>> >>> The talk pages are there to collaborate and discuss, and the idea is to >>> move away from approve/neutral/oppose and build something richer. In the >>> next few days I'll try to push discussions on some topics to start building >>> that muscle. >>> >>> So, without further ado, three asks: >>> 1. Come and discuss the essay, and share it. We need our local >>> communities to see where we actually stand. >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/what-now-2-data-strikes-back >>> 2. Please discuss and challenge this proposal: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Next_25/A_proposal_to_frame_Next_25 >>> Maybe it's the wrong idea, but we need to find a way to discuss better and >>> build shared understanding. >>> 3. If you are trying things, building tools, share them there: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Next_25/Tools_and_experiments >>> >>> And more generally, we need to value and celebrate innovation and >>> exploration. >>> >>> In the essay I share some ideas, some bolder (it's the last part if you >>> want to skip to it) but there are hundreds more. We need better ways to >>> share them, showcase them and test them. >>> >>> We can't continue working in such siloed ways. We need to band together, >>> and we need to make quick, clear choices about what we stop doing, because >>> we can't fight every fight. Otherwise the -4% will turn to -15% very fast, >>> and by then we'll be fighting so many fires that our time and energy won't >>> go into building for tomorrow. >>> >>> That is not the path we're on today. But! It still can be. >>> >>> PS: Last time people reached saying I should have shared ideas and >>> opinions more, now that I did I of course expect people to reach out and >>> say that I shouldn't have shared ideas and opinions :D >>> >>> -- >>> Christophe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/IE5XHTHWRVIEDR6QIHTVWGE3ZBNQPOEZ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 >> 4266 <+1%20617-529-4266> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/XADHCB3RWOF5CN546FDHGD763YDPUKMZ/ >> 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/QB33IXCGOUP2TCHNH7S6WVBN3D22WOCN/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________ 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/JVQ4LEEW3GHKN5F5H3KJGNSUENLI4AGF/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
