Can I just say how geektastically awesome it is that we're having a
discussion about how to frame claims about Wikipedia's popularity? Now this
is what lists are FOR.
But in the interest of avoiding
stasis<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(rhetoric)#Stasis>is>,
I also want to say to Lane: don't sweat the language too much ;) You're not
going to be spouting untruths or despoiling the brand if you say Wikipedia
is the, or one of the, highest trafficked websites in the world for health
info. Wikipedia researchers make claims like that frequently, and often
with less data to back it up than you're offering.
Also, Lane: do you want someone to script up that pageview request? I agree
with Erik that using WP Med/WP Health categories will get you better
results. I've been on the hook for getting some similar data for
Biosthmores for about... 6 months now. I could work on it on my own time
some evening this week.
- J
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
On 10/04/2013 11:39 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
"Search engines increasingly lead people to
Wikipedia, which is one of
the factors in making Wikipedia the single highest traffic source of health
information in the world."
I can search for images, but only when they have words
associated with them, e.g. descriptions, tags or categories.
In this sense, doctors examining a patient and giving them
a diagnosis is similar to tagging an image. Suddenly, the
illness that this patient felt becomes possible to search.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik -
http://aronsson.se
______________________________**_________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/analytics<https://lists.w…
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation