This is the opposite of true in my experience: if you run a content-heavy site, Wikipedia is going to be one of your top traffic sources — especially for time on site since the visitors who arrive tend to have a very low bounce rate.

Look at my profile, I own content-heavy sites and have for many years. I can show you logs - Wikipedia does virtually nothing. And the content of my sites has been regurgitated by Wikipedia thousands of times.

It maybe doesn't drive much traffic directly from Wikipedia, but you might have a higher SEO rank when people search in google for whatever your sites are about. Thanks to the links from Wikipedia.

Which are tagged with ugc or nofollow :DD. You have to realise that the current model is based on outrageous theft of people's hard work.

If you view the source of any Wikipedia page, they purposefully include "nofollow" tags, so Google ignores these links!

"nofollow" or not, it does not mean that search engines do not take that into account. They maybe don't scan the linked site there and then, but I would be surprised if they did not take note of that someone linked to it.

All I can say is that my experience has been very different. Wikipedia editors have been very good at citing our primary sources.

I mean my sites are cited over a thousand of times, but it only makes sense: a tiny percentage of visitors who view the Wikipedia page even reach the bottom of the page and then click on one of the links. And there is no benefit in terms of Google rankings.

Are you concerned about all your data being scraped and getting directed for references by chat bots?

How would that affect your monetization?

Yes, it's pretty much game over for free-to-access factual content sites. I've been focusing heavily on AI in recent years, so I saw it coming. It's been a death by a thousand cuts, with Google incorporating long snippets, etc.