Glad someone brings this up.
There are some longstanding questions that I have about wiki(p/m)edia usage
by NON-wiki(p/m)edians (called wikipedians from here on).
I regard a wikipedian as someone who is registered and logged in, and a
non-wikipedian as someone who is not logged in.
That is a choice, something can be said to regard people who are registered
and logged in but never edited anything as non wikipedians, but the
definition above is a bit simpler.
Some questions:
- Where do they non-wikipedians from? Google, favourites/bookmarks?
- How do search? Do they use the search box, or do they arrive from google
and use google for their search?
- Do non-wikipedians use the search box or do they use out internal
hyperlinks?
- How many pages do they visit on average before they find what they are
looking for? And what is the spread?
- Do they use categories for navigation? Or are categories just a hobby or
tool of wikipedians? If they use the categories for navigation, to what
extend?
- Do non wikipedians use the interlanguage links, and to what extend?
- and no doubt others will be able to contribute even more questions.
Non-wikipedians in a sense are our "customers", and to make wikipedia as
useful as possible, i believe we should learn about their behaviour on
wikipedia.
live long and prosper
teun spaans
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOrigins.htm
Well, if I'm interpreting this correctly, then nearly 90% of our hits
come from people following internal links, so somebody must be
clicking on them! However, you do make a good point: we have done
studies watching how people edit, we haven't done any (to the best of
my knowledge) watching how they read. Perhaps we should.
On 20 April 2010 20:11, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>
wrote:
There was lately a lot of research about making
Wikipedia's usability
better
for editing.
Is there any research about the way in which Wikipedia's Actual Readers
use
hyperlinks in Wikipedia, both internal and
external?
I am wondering about it, because you know, we have Manual of Style for
internal and external links, essays about the pros and cons of red links,
bots that remove over-linking etc. - yet time after time i meet Actual
Readers that tell me that they didn't understand a word in an article,
even
though this word was linked to a good article
that explained its meaning.
But they didn't click it and because of that they gave up on
understanding
the whole article.
If One Stupid Reader would tell me such a thing, i wouldn't mind, but
Many
Clever Readers told me that. Did anyone try to
think about it deeply?
--
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l