In a message dated 4/22/2009 7:14:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharothwp@googlemail.com writes:
Some people *like* those articles on obscure topics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_elephant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergina_Sun%3E%3E
----------
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
Will
************** Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)
2009/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.
2009/4/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.
Well, something happened on 21 November 2008
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles
Any guesses? Something checking a net connection is possible, but personally I use google.com for that, and so do most people I've looked over the shoulder of. That or bbc.co.uk. Why would someone use the Wikipedia article on The Beatles?
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.
Well, something happened on 21 November 2008
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles
Any guesses? Something checking a net connection is possible, but personally I use google.com for that, and so do most people I've looked over the shoulder of. That or bbc.co.uk. Why would someone use the Wikipedia article on The Beatles?
Someone on IRC has realised that it didn't start on the 21st, that's just when the hits moved from [[Beatles]] to [[The Beatles]]. It actually started gradually last September...
It looks like it might be related to "The Beatles: Rock Band" which seems to be by far the worlds most expensive video game or something. It was announced last September or so and there were more news stories about it on the 20th/21st this month.
It is a bit suspicious that the interest is staying so high though, usually the peaks die away more quickly, but I think that's it.
On 22/04/2009, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.
Well, something happened on 21 November 2008
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles
Any guesses? Something checking a net connection is possible, but personally I use google.com for that, and so do most people I've looked over the shoulder of. That or bbc.co.uk. Why would someone use the Wikipedia article on The Beatles?
Someone on IRC has realised that it didn't start on the 21st, that's just when the hits moved from [[Beatles]] to [[The Beatles]]. It actually started gradually last September...
2009/4/23 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
It looks like it might be related to "The Beatles: Rock Band" which seems to be by far the worlds most expensive video game or something. It was announced last September or so and there were more news stories about it on the 20th/21st this month.
It is a bit suspicious that the interest is staying so high though, usually the peaks die away more quickly, but I think that's it.
No. It's not just high but in the daily top few for months. The Beatles have got more views this year than Barack Obama or in fact any article other than "wiki". Its getting double the views of Watchmen which probably had far more geek and general internet appeal. 100K views week in week out is simply not possible for well anything conventional.
Even Barack Obama doesn't manage that most months.
2009/4/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
It looks like it might be related to "The Beatles: Rock Band" which seems to be by far the worlds most expensive video game or something. It was announced last September or so and there were more news stories about it on the 20th/21st this month.
It is a bit suspicious that the interest is staying so high though, usually the peaks die away more quickly, but I think that's it.
No. It's not just high but in the daily top few for months. The Beatles have got more views this year than Barack Obama or in fact any article other than "wiki". Its getting double the views of Watchmen which probably had far more geek and general internet appeal. 100K views week in week out is simply not possible for well anything conventional.
Even Barack Obama doesn't manage that most months.
And it moved instantly from Beatles to The Beatles, that requires some kind of central organisation. Either all the hits come from one place, or it's people all following the same link. I've asked on IRC if someone can check the logs and see what is going on, but there were no volunteers. Only anonymised logs are made public, and that is no good for this.
On second thoughts, yes, no single website could flick that many people across, and why would anyone do that? And the number of hits are so remarkably even over such a long period. News stories cause a peak, but this is sustained.
It does indeed look like somebody is up to no good, a botnet or a worm or something.
It could be wise to lock the page, it might be being used for communication of some kind; somebody may make an edit and trigger something, but probably not.
On 23/04/2009, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
It looks like it might be related to "The Beatles: Rock Band" which seems to be by far the worlds most expensive video game or something. It was announced last September or so and there were more news stories about it on the 20th/21st this month.
It is a bit suspicious that the interest is staying so high though, usually the peaks die away more quickly, but I think that's it.
No. It's not just high but in the daily top few for months. The Beatles have got more views this year than Barack Obama or in fact any article other than "wiki". Its getting double the views of Watchmen which probably had far more geek and general internet appeal. 100K views week in week out is simply not possible for well anything conventional.
Even Barack Obama doesn't manage that most months.
And it moved instantly from Beatles to The Beatles, that requires some kind of central organisation. Either all the hits come from one place, or it's people all following the same link. I've asked on IRC if someone can check the logs and see what is going on, but there were no volunteers. Only anonymised logs are made public, and that is no good for this.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/22 WJhonson@aol.com:
Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.
Well, something happened on 21 November 2008
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles
Any guesses? Something checking a net connection is possible, but personally I use google.com for that, and so do most people I've looked over the shoulder of. That or bbc.co.uk. Why would someone use the Wikipedia article on The Beatles?
Someone on IRC has realised that it didn't start on the 21st, that's just when the hits moved from [[Beatles]] to [[The Beatles]]. It actually started gradually last September...
When oddities have turned up in the most viewed before I assumed it was compromised computers useing the page to check if they had net access (wikipedia is not a very suspicious site for a computer to visit).
Other options would be a popular site useing it for a "leave this site" link. But I wouldn't expect traffic on that level. It would be a very odd choice for a large organization homepage so I think we can rule that out.
It's most odd.
-----Original Message----- From: geni geniice@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2009/wikipedia/en/ http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/
Are more up to date. And no I can't explain why the article on the Beatles is as popular as it is. It should be popular yes but not that popular. Wounder if it is being used by something to check to see if it can access the net.>>> ---------------
Funny to see how high Random Article hits. I never use that myself. Also funny that 404. Wonder what that's about?
-- geni
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l