On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:45 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Toby Negrin
<tnegrin(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Andrew, Phoebe -- here's what the
Communication department here is
comfortable with:
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the
Wikimedia Foundation
receive hundreds of millions of unique visitors per month
Thanks Toby. I'll start using that and add it to my presentation toolkit.
The numbers of unique devices for enwiki are far
greater than 500mm.
But of
course, people use more than one device and/or
shared computers. There
are
datasets out there about average number of
devices per person so we
could
potentially use this as a scaling factor to get a
higher level of
confidence
but IMO the mapping from device to actual human
is always going to be
dicey.
Sounds like a research project! Like Andrew, for communication
purposes I'm less interested in exactitude than I am in
order-of-magnitude. (The kinds of things I use these numbers for:
comparisons against the online population, against the population
reached by libraries, etc. -- all of which is deeply qualified, of
course.)
Semi-off topic thoughts about "reach" as a metric:
I wonder if there's a qualitative project somewhere in here about
*types* of use -- e.g. if I'm using WP on my phone & my work pc is
that really equivalent use? Perhaps I am using them for different
kinds of information seeking, e.g. looking up terms related to work vs
looking up info on movie stars -- does this different kind of use
matter for how we construct and present information, or count "use"?
Can we build testable hypotheses about use patterns & needs for people
who do straight device swapping (phone to tablet to pc, for the same
purposes) versus people who have devices for different purposes (i.e.
work v. personal) versus people who share devices? (Obviously, all
this goes well beyond just Wikipedia use).
I also think there's something in here about levels of access related
to language, which relates to multilingual use of Wikipedia. Someone
who speaks a language served by a Wikipedia with 100K articles can not
access Wikipedia to the same depth or level that a person who can use
English Wikipedia with 5M articles can.
In other words, though we talk about reach, not all reach is the same.
The depth to which Wikipedia reaches me -- someone with unlimited data
on multiple devices and 24/7 device access for all purposes, who reads
English well and a couple other languages poorly -- is way different
from the depth which someone with part-time access on a mobile phone
who speaks an underserved language is reached by our projects. This
may be pretty obvious, but I hadn't thought about the implications for
claiming "we reach x millions" before.
-- phoebe
For comparison, I worked at Yahoo for a long time
and generally
understand
their tech stack -- in their 2014 annual report,
Yahoo speaks to "more
than
1 billion MAUs".[1] From my experience, I
really don't know how they
could
measure this with any certainty without
estimation or other statistical
techniques because they have the same measurement issues that we do.
Only
Facebook or other sites where personalization is
necessary for the site
to
work can report on reach without some sort of
qualification.
-Toby
[1]
http://static.tumblr.com/7drgjla/386nnw4n9/yahoo_inc._2014_annual_report.pdf
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:09 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
>
> On 17 March 2016 at 19:40, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> One of the drawbacks is that we
> >> can't report on a single total number across all our projects.
> >
> > Hmm. That's unfortunate for understanding reach -- if nothing else,
> > the idea that "half a billion people access Wikipedia" (eg from
> > earlier comscore reports) was a PR-friendly way of giving an idea of
> > the scale of our readership. But I can see why it would be tricky to
> > measure. Since this is the research list: I suspect there's still
lots
> > to be done in understanding just how
multilingual people use
different
>
language editions of Wikipedia, too.
Building on this question a little: with the information we currently
have, is it actively *wrong* for us to keep using the "half a billion"
figure as a very rough first-order estimate? (Like Phoebe, I think I
keep trotting it out when giving talks). Do the new figures give us
reason to think it's substantially higher or lower than that, or even
not meaningfully answerable?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at>
gmail.com *
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org