I agree that Google's Knowledge Graph is likely the largest reason for fewer visits. New editors don't assure Wikipedia's future unless they stay around; as of

I agree that Google's Knowledge Graph is likely the largest reason for fewer visits. New editors don't assure Wikipedia's future unless they stay around; as of the last study I can find, 2010, retention had fallen to quite low numbers... http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results#Editor_retention_has_not_worsened_over_the_past_three_years_.28Finding_.234.29 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Resul... ...and each year's cohort was sticking around less than the year before. I recognize much of this may be that, in the more-established Wikipedias, the core audience of potential editors has been found, and the fun/easy 'low-hanging fruit' content has been finished (or made less fun/approachable by policy). But that means Wikipedia is in new territory, with fewer active and experienced editors over time, doing less-exciting maintenance and defense work, while search engines retain more 'reference' views and other competitive sites (especially in the Q&A space) improve their coverage and depth. Wikipedia needs positive attention to keep the forces of decay at bay; if the attentional indicators have shifted in the wrong direction, even very slightly for now, it risks nearing a tipping point into collapse.