The all-hype AI propaganda is ubiquitous. The nuclear power propaganda has been bad about 12 months, too.
Does Wikipedia have any plans to launch their own kind of chatbot, then they would fight back.
I’m waiting for the graphic spicer2 posted to be available officially and am unaware of how the data is sourced (and would like it to include Q1 2025), but this critique of it is undoubtedly worse.
The figure it takes is from [ChatGPT Statistics (2025): DAU & MAU Data Worldwide](https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/). This site claims 180.5 million monthly active users in **April 2024**. But it then claims 800 million **weekly** active users in **April 2025**. Either the original poster of this graphic is trying to mislead, or has misread this website.
I also don’t understand why they complain about not being able to find detailed statistics, whilst simultaneously not looking for the source demandsage uses for their data (the figures are based off OpenAI staff statements: [ChatGPT Hits 1 Billion Users? ‘Doubled In Just Weeks’ Says OpenAI CEO](https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2025/04/12/chatgpt-hits-1-billion-users-openai-ceo-says-doubled-in-weeks/)) . It’s not usual for companies to published detailed information on their monthly active users.
Complaining about the use of a % figure also makes little sense to me. There may be some inaccuracy in the estimate, but we roughly know how many people use the internet.
I thought so. Their monthly visits is way up, their monthly users is very different.
I feel like this is – again – misleading.
I’m not sure how you can conclude that Wikipedia has more users overall using the data provided…
There are no statistics on how many users Wikipedia has provided at all – how can you say that it has more?
I don’t even understand the comparison. I go on Wikipedia to learn about Custard’s last stand and I go on Chat gpt to debug my R code. It’s like comparing visitors at a library to those at Oreilys auto parts
Because every time I ask chatgpt something, it looks for sources on the internet, including Wikipedia
10 comments
The all-hype AI propaganda is ubiquitous. The nuclear power propaganda has been bad about 12 months, too.
Does Wikipedia have any plans to launch their own kind of chatbot, then they would fight back.
I’m waiting for the graphic spicer2 posted to be available officially and am unaware of how the data is sourced (and would like it to include Q1 2025), but this critique of it is undoubtedly worse.
The figure it takes is from [ChatGPT Statistics (2025): DAU & MAU Data Worldwide](https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/). This site claims 180.5 million monthly active users in **April 2024**. But it then claims 800 million **weekly** active users in **April 2025**. Either the original poster of this graphic is trying to mislead, or has misread this website.
I also don’t understand why they complain about not being able to find detailed statistics, whilst simultaneously not looking for the source demandsage uses for their data (the figures are based off OpenAI staff statements: [ChatGPT Hits 1 Billion Users? ‘Doubled In Just Weeks’ Says OpenAI CEO](https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2025/04/12/chatgpt-hits-1-billion-users-openai-ceo-says-doubled-in-weeks/)) . It’s not usual for companies to published detailed information on their monthly active users.
Complaining about the use of a % figure also makes little sense to me. There may be some inaccuracy in the estimate, but we roughly know how many people use the internet.
I thought so. Their monthly visits is way up, their monthly users is very different.
I feel like this is – again – misleading.
I’m not sure how you can conclude that Wikipedia has more users overall using the data provided…
There are no statistics on how many users Wikipedia has provided at all – how can you say that it has more?
I don’t even understand the comparison. I go on Wikipedia to learn about Custard’s last stand and I go on Chat gpt to debug my R code. It’s like comparing visitors at a library to those at Oreilys auto parts
Because every time I ask chatgpt something, it looks for sources on the internet, including Wikipedia
ChatGPT probably sources [Wikipedia’s wrong information](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia). lol
Probably got the data from chatgpt.
If you include the ChatGPT app, which is not tracked by these services, then it’s a lot more than Wikipedia
Comments are closed.