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 stasishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(rhetoric)#Stasis, 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@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@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
______________________________**_________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/analyticshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics