Or see page views on English Wikipedia from 2016-current: https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/total... Looks pretty flat, right? Does that seem normal?
As for Wikimedia Enterprise, you do have to read between the lines a bit. "The focus is on organizations that want to repurpose Wikimedia content in other contexts, providing data services at a large scale".
The flattening of users could also be due to a general internet-wide reduction in long-form (or even medium-form) non-fiction reading. How are page views for The New York Times?
Seems like it should be simple to A/B test, though. Obviously Google could do it themselves by randomly taking away the widget, but would could also see whether referrals from non-Google search engines (though they are themselves a tiny percentage) continue to increase while Google remains flat.
As for NYT, is there a better proxy to compare to? There's no public pageview stats and they have a paywall.
Wikipedia visitors, edits, and revenue are all increasing, and the rate that they're increasing is increasing, at least in the last few years. Is this a claim about the third derivative?
> Enough so that Wikipedia is now pushing back with a product that the Googles of the world will have to pay for.
The Wikimedia Enterprise thing seems like it has nothing to do with missing visitors and that companies ingesting raw Wikipedia edits are an opportunity for diversifying revenue by offering paid structured APIs and service contracts. Kind of the traditional RedHat approach to revenue in open source: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise