For years, Wikipedia has been a star of
When Google introduced the Knowledge Graph back in 2012, a product described as its own vault of online information, I wondered whether this would have an effect on the amount of traffic moving from Google SERPs to actual websites. For example, if a user was looking for information on a specific movie, instead of visiting your website, that user could instead rely only on the Knowledge Graph information immediately presented to them at the top of the search results.
The business owner’s solution to this is relatively straightforward; instead of using content marketing to provide straightforward, generic information that the Knowledge Graph can get for itself, start writing about more complex, niche, specific topics that won’t get such love. Most websites aren’t focused on providing this information directly, so they can find ways around it. Wikipedia isn’t so fortunate. Wikipedia exists solely to give people this information, and if the Knowledge Graph is consistently beating them to the punch, what does that mean for the website’s future?
Exaggerated Claims and Jimmy Wales’s Response
I’ve seen some occasional posts about drops in Wikipedia relevance in searches. Some of these are anecdotal, and others are driven by data—either way, many of them claim that Wikipedia has suffered dramatic or sudden losses, sometimes even claiming that Wikipedia has been penalized by Google.
Jimmy Wales, co-founder and public face of Wikipedia, denied such claims, stating that there have been no sudden or dramatic drop-offs in traffic over the past few months and years. However, he also stated that there is a clear “long-term issue” with Google slowly encroaching on its territory (though Wales used less inflammatory language).
He went on to say that Wikipedia isn’t wholly dependent on clicks from Google SERPs, the way an ad-based site or e-commerce platform would be. The majority of Wikipedia users are so familiar with the platform and so committed to the community that a drop in search traffic won’t have a substantial impact on the health of the site.
However, there has been a clear decline in traffic to Wikipedia, and as the Knowledge Graph continues to grow more formidable, that decline will only increase. Wales makes a good case for the strength of their community, so it’s unlikely that the Wikipedia community will die anytime soon, but eventually, their search visibility might drop to almost nothing.
Broader Implications
The death of Wikipedia wouldn’t represent a critical shift in user behavior, but it would demonstrate some strange capacities for Google’s current line of development. If Google’s Knowledge Graph has the power to dethrone the Internet’s largest and arguably most trusted information authority based on similar search results-based entries, what else does it have the power to do?
The Knowledge Graph itself is based on an artificial intelligence algorithm, which sorts and indexes information all over the web on a variety of sources, makes it searchable, interprets user queries, and then presents the information in a readable format. Over the years, this algorithm (as well as the amount of information it has stored) has become more complex. It’s covered more subjects in greater detail, it’s offered more thorough answers on more specific queries, and it’s taken up more space on the SERPs. It’s highly likely that this pattern will continue, as the Knowledge Graph gradually takes over the SERP entirely for any query that is concisely answerable.
The question becomes—if this information is instantly available to users without the need to seek out external websites, will it eventually get to a point where users don’t need individual websites at all? Already, local search results are offering something similar—the new 3-pack local results show the top three local businesses relevant for a given query, along with a website, phone number, and directions that would previously only be found on a website. This feature, too, cuts out the “middle man” that an individual website would represent.
Take, as another example, Google’s recent foray into direct buying shopping carts. Soon, vendors will be able to list products available for purchase, which users can buy immediately on a Google-based shopping cart, with similarly no need to venture off to a separate site.
These three developments—the Knowledge Graph, the local pack, and Google Shopping—serve the majority of users’ online needs (general information, business information, and shopping opportunities) without ever leaving the search engine. The significance to my original topic is this: if Google’s “general information” wing has gotten strong enough to threaten Wikipedia, the King of general information online, does that mean Google will threaten Yelp next? Or Amazon and eBay?
It’s still a little early to tell how these features will develop. They could grow a little further and taper off, or they could continue rising until all traffic can be effectively placated without ever leaving Google’s SERPs. If the situation is the latter, SEO will have to radically transform if it is to survive, and traditional websites themselves may disappear altogether.
In the meantime, keep an eye on Wikipedia’s visibility and traffic, and consider it a herald for the changes to come.
