Mark J. Nelson writes:
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.
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: [image: Inline image 1]
~~Alex
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, < wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wiki-research-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100 From: Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors Message-ID: 87zitvzhhi.fsf@mjn.anadrome.org Content-Type: text/plain
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com writes:
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"?
Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)
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.
-Mark
Subject: Digest Footer
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
Hi Alex,
Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP were through random-article"?
Andrew.
On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk alex.druk@gmail.com wrote:
Mark J. Nelson writes:
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.
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: [image: Inline image 1]
~~Alex
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, < wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wiki-research-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100 From: Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors Message-ID: 87zitvzhhi.fsf@mjn.anadrome.org Content-Type: text/plain
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com writes:
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"?
Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)
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.
-Mark
Subject: Digest Footer
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
-- Thank you.
Alex Druk alex.druk@gmail.com (775) 237-8550 Google voice
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Most likely, it is the absolute number of random searches in billions On Mar 19, 2016 6:01 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Hi Alex,
Stupid question - is that "3.36% of all random-article searches were on Latvian WP", or "3.36% of all searches (pageviews?) on the Latvian WP were through random-article"?
Andrew.
On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Alex Druk alex.druk@gmail.com wrote:
Mark J. Nelson writes:
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.
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: [image: Inline image 1]
~~Alex
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, < wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wiki-research-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wiki-research-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: unique visitors (Mark J. Nelson)
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:57:45 +0100 From: Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] unique visitors Message-ID: 87zitvzhhi.fsf@mjn.anadrome.org Content-Type: text/plain
phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com writes:
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"?
Beyond the issue of devices, I think this is important in part because the raw traffic counts (and reach numbers and similar) paint a very specific story of what Wikimedia is doing and is successful at. (And what you measure influences what you tend to optimize for.)
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.
-Mark
Subject: Digest Footer
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 127, Issue 15
-- Thank you.
Alex Druk alex.druk@gmail.com (775) 237-8550 Google voice
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
