>Specifically, a small slice of content, mainly English Wikipedia
>articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
>if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
>specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
>people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
>etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
>Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
>anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.
>articles on pop culture, recent news events, and U.S. politics,
>contribute a disproportionate share of views. (A weekly top-25 list for
>enwiki is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report ). So
>if you're measuring aggregate numbers, you're measuring mainly that
>specific type of content. If the goal is really simply to reach as many
>people as possible, have high page views and unique visitor counts,
>etc., then this subset of articles is really the only important part of
>Wikimedia's mission--- articles on, say, mathematics, don't contribute
>anything to moving the needle if that's the metric.
One should also consider the fact that significant number of users use Wikipedia as entertainment. As an example of such use is random searches. On all Wikipedia sites number of
random searches in 2014 exceeded 1 billion. Here is a simple graph illustrated this:
~~Alex