Hello Analytics list! I am following up on a thread I started in October 2013 in which I asked for guidance about framing claims on the popularity of Wikipedia's health content. <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2013-October/001085.htmlThank you all. With the help of your comments I got a feature article published in BMJ, the "British Medical Journal". Even though I did not engage you all in conversation I really put a lot of thought into everything you all wrote, and found the response very encouraging. In this article in various ways I said "Health content on Wikipedia is more requested and accessed than comparable information from most other sources." When I originally wrote to this board I asked for analytic backing to say this, and I appreciate the comments that I got. If anyone in the future would like to talk more about Wikipedia's health traffic then please post to this board and contact me or contact me and others through WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia. My article is "Wikipedia: what it is and why it matters for healthcare" and it can be accessed by those with a BMJ magazine subscription at the first link or through an alternative method in the second link. <http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2478< http://bluerasberry.com/2014/04/wikipedia-and-health-information-published-… I also wish to respond to the common concern that people ought not get their health information from Wikipedia, and I wanted to share with you all what I tell people when they ask me why I care about Wikipedia's health information. Wikipedia is an extremely popular source of health information, and it is also a source with quality problems. All other sources of health information are unpopular, and they may or may not have good quality. It is my opinion that it would be less expensive by orders of magnitude to improve the quality of Wikipedia's health information than it would be to increase the popularity and accessibility of any other source or health information to a level of accessibility comparable to Wikipedia. Right now the Wikimedia movement is not imagined as a public or global health movement, but I feel that there is something here and that analytics might be the argument on which to base a call to action. The request I originally expressed to this board still stands - I still would like whatever information might be available describing the audience accessing health content on Wikipedia, and I think comprehensive information would be appreciated in health more than anywhere else in a Wikimedia project. Thank you all, and thank you again if you commented months ago. yours, On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Jonathan Morgan &lt;jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org&gt;wrote;wrote: > 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 &lt;lars(a)aronsson.se&gt; 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 >> -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Learning Strategist > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Jonathan Morgan &lt;jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org&gt;wrote;wrote: > 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 &lt;lars(a)aronsson.se&gt; 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 >> -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Learning Strategist > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com