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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
