[WikiEN-l] Citizendium vs. Wikipedia

[geni]

2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> 2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/4/22 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>>> 2009/4/22 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>>>> 2009/4/22  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a list of the top100 most popular Wikipedia pages?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://stats.grok.se/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.



-- 
geni