Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-28/Traffic report

Reddit creep

The debt that Wikipedia owes sites like Reddit or Google often goes unacknowledged around here. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to bring knowledge to the world, then it is sites like these that are actually doing it. Whenever a great artist, scientist or humanitarian suddenly becomes an object of public interest, you can bet a Google Doodle was responsible; whenever an obscure event, individual or idea suddenly rises in public awareness, you can bet a thread on Reddit is the reason why. This week saw three such articles in the top 25 (and two in the top 10); the highest since the monitoring project was begun at the year's start. It might raise the issue of how we actually promote our content to our readers.

For a list of the top 25 articles, including exclusions, see: WP:TOP25

For the week of August 18 – 24, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:

← Previous "Traffic report"

Next "Traffic report" →

In this issue

28 August 2013 (all comments)

In the media

Recent research

WikiProject report

Traffic report

Featured content

News and notes

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• It's always interesting to see stats on what people come to Wikipedia to view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I always read the top 25 list. Could that list be the default one, instead ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Me too. SchreiberBike talk 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The top 10 was decided when this became a signpost feature. I actually prefer to keep the top 25 separate, as it means I have less to edit and pare down for neutrality's sake. Serendi^podous 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you, from time to time, spot one or two articles not on the top 25 that should not be, say, in the top 100 ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking me to scan the top 100 for spam? Serendi^podous 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has too many interesting articles. Some of these get on the top 100 for unknown reason, even spam. If it was a bird, an archeological artefact, a sport player, etc., then it would bring some diversity to the regular (Facebook, List of Bollywood films of 2013, etc.). Those clearly in the top 100 because of spam should not be picked. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what you want. Are you asking for the top 25 to be expanded into a top 100? Because the list takes long enough to compile as it is. I mean sure YOU could do that if you wanted... Serendi^podous 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, the use of that image on the main page of the signpost made me immediately click on the traffic report without even reading the other sections! Nicely chosen. Miyagawa (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious to see if you ever figured out why Yahoo! was in the top ten for a couple of weeks in June? XOttawahitech (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never figured it out. It's actually still in the top ten; I just don't include it any more. Serendi^podous 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Serendipodous: should this not be mentioned somewhere? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mention it in the subsection of the top 25. Serendi^podous 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for mentioning it at:Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report#Yahoo.21, but shouldn't the notice be a bit more prominent - after all your report is read by many who may not know you are using your own discretion in the the choice of sites added to the table(?) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why Yahoo in particular, and not any of the other ones I remove? Serendi^podous 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Serendipodous: sure I am interested, which other entries do you remove? X15:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]