Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
MZMcBride, 12/04/2011 02:32: If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we describe them. If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that language later decreases. Yes, and my point is that it would be a bad thing: it's better if you're forced to consider it a problem (as it would be). Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
MZMcBride, 11/04/2011 01:23: Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or the tenth? Yes. For instance, if you don't acknowledge that Facebook has now more visits than Wikipedia you don't understand that the Internet has changed in the last few years. If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we describe them. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: MZMcBride, 11/04/2011 01:23: Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or the tenth? Yes. For instance, if you don't acknowledge that Facebook has now more visits than Wikipedia you don't understand that the Internet has changed in the last few years. Sorry, I may have been unclear. I wasn't saying that it literally matters to no one what rank Wikimedia web properties have in comparison to other web properties. I was saying that in the context that it's being used (in press releases, job openings, etc.), it's not adding any actual value, it's just puffery (and arguably inaccurate or misleading puffery, which is even worse). If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we describe them. If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that language later decreases. Wikimedia sites will likely be in the top ten for quite some time. Whether they'll be fifth isn't nearly as assured. The simplest and sanest solution seems to be to drop the needless precision. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Milos Rancic wikime...@millosh.org wrote: * Alexa may be unreliable, mostly for smaller sites, but: ** Wikipedia is not small site, as well as top ten sites aren't. Bigger numbers give more relevant conclusions. ** It gives good clue of what the trends are. I remember that Wikipedia was indeed at the fifth place in 2009 or so. And it shows drop from the fifth place, which has relation with other observable trends. ** People are going to Alexa to check trends and ratings. We can dispute reliability, but we can't dispute overall impression based on differences between our source and Alexa. * Baidu is on the 6th place on Alexa [1], counting Google at 1st, Youtube at 4th and Blogger at 5th place. QQ is at 10th place counting three Google's sites. And none of them is at the top 10 list on comScore. Willing to hear reasons for that. The main difference between the comScore and Alexa stats is what they consider as site. Alexa seems to be ranking top-level domains while comScore groups websites that belong to one entity. That explains why YouTube and Blogger are not on comScore's list, and the different order of top websites. Also, comScore stats are for January 2010, before Google pulled out of China, which maybe the reason Baidu didn't show up in the top ten then. If you group websites on Alexa by entity you'll have Wikipedia.org move from 8th to 6th place, and that without including other WMF sites, like Wikimedia.org which is ranked 182. So the results may not be that different after all, especially since our Alexa rank has been actually hovering around 7 for the past months (You can check Alexa rank history back to Q2 2009 by clicking Traffic stats and from the drop down menu below the graph choose max.) Despite all that, I still think saying that we are one of the top-ten sites just to be on the safe side and avoid misunderstandings. Regards, -- Orionist ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors, the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the most recent available. Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
Sue Gardner wrote: On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors, the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the most recent available. As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website is still completely wrong, as the comScore data is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 10 April 2011 23:20, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website is still completely wrong, as the comScore data is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-) MZMcBride Except we know that wikipedia gets the overwhelming majority of the traffic. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. comScore, Alexa, c use different methods. comScore is not perfect, and has known biases in its coverage, but it is a bit better than Alexa in that regard. (We used to rely on Alexa data and moved away from it) I would love better data - if you have a better source, or a better way to describe the data from multiple sources, that would be a great reason to update our public docs. But just replacing comScore cites with Alexa cites won't be an improvement. MZM writes: The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors, are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website is still completely wrong, as the comScore data is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. Those are all aggregates of multiple projects. Most of the others use a single TLD but they aren't single 'sites'. [for SEO purposes, we would probably do better if every project shared the same TLD the way Google's do, but that's another thread.] SJ -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:50 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. Milos, It might also mean that the information being referred to, hasn't been updated. The Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia had the same issue a while ago when some of the stats were not up to date by a huge margin. The current Wikipedia entry on English wikipedia quotes stats and the date it was taken on, both are correct. It doesn't have to mean either of those two things. The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors, the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the most recent available. As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website is still completely wrong, as the comScore data is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-) I don't think Sue said Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website. Its 'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data. Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
Theo10011 wrote: I don't think Sue said Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website. Its 'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data. I don't think you did your homework. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterC/en: We are the number five website in the world, with more than 400 million readers per month. That was a personal appeal from Sue. If you search wikimediafoundation.org for references to fifth most, you'll find plenty of results from Sue, Jimmy, Veronique, Erik, and others calling Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world (it's in the general FAQ, the Annual Plan FAQ, a recent press release, and in several job openings postings that I can see off-hand). What was your point again? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
Samuel Klein wrote: On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. comScore, Alexa, c use different methods. comScore is not perfect, and has known biases in its coverage, but it is a bit better than Alexa in that regard. (We used to rely on Alexa data and moved away from it) I would love better data - if you have a better source, or a better way to describe the data from multiple sources, that would be a great reason to update our public docs. But just replacing comScore cites with Alexa cites won't be an improvement. I think the original complaint was that the Wikimedia Foundation constantly touts hosting the fifth most-visited site in the world when it's (at best) imprecise. I think the simplest solution is to just stop saying that (a solution that someone else has already suggested in this thread). Being accurate is important, especially to members of the Wikimedia community. If you can't be accurate and precise, write in more generic terms (e.g., Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the Internet today). Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or the tenth? [for SEO purposes, we would probably do better if every project shared the same TLD the way Google's do, but that's another thread.] Yes, Wikipedia seems to have a lot of difficulty with search engine ranking. ;-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:38 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Theo10011 wrote: I don't think Sue said Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website. Its 'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data. I don't think you did your homework. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterC/en: We are the number five website in the world, with more than 400 million readers per month. That was a personal appeal from Sue. If you search wikimediafoundation.org for references to fifth most, you'll find plenty of results from Sue, Jimmy, Veronique, Erik, and others calling Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world (it's in the general FAQ, the Annual Plan FAQ, a recent press release, and in several job openings postings that I can see off-hand). What was your point again? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I only meant in the previous post which I quoted. I didn't know you were referring to off-list mentions of fifth most. I agree that there needs to be clarification on the usage of fifth most on wmf wiki at least. Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
2011/4/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. WMF sites are the fifth popular web property in the world according to comScore, where web properties are all sites operated by a single entity. Indeed, WP by itself would still be -- as of February, 376M out of 379M uniques go to Wikipedia.org; there's substantial audience overlap with the other sites, the largest of which is Wiktionary.org with 10.4M uniques So, it's equally accurate to say that Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property (as stated e.g. in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1c/Key_Facts_wikipedia_March_2011.pdf ). It's inaccurate to say it is the fifth most popular website when using the common definition of website as a collection of documents/services provided from a single domain name, which is why I would prefer for us to consistently use web property, even though it's a less common term. The link Nemo provided is worth reading re: limitations of the comScore data: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia#Limitations For internal analysis, internal data is much preferable, but for communication where we're situated relative to the rest of the web, comScore is, as Sue stated, the industry standard. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Outdated manual
May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders. [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 9 April 2011 10:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders. I dunno if we need to be that specific. I doubt people take the '5th place' wording as literal. It is more to get a sense of Wikipedia's popularity online rather than stating specifically where we are. Though, perhaps a more imprecise wording like 'in the top 10' might be a better offer. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 04/09/2011 10:18 AM, Svip wrote: On 9 April 2011 10:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied between 6th and 8th place [1]. Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the next two things: * We are out of reality. * We are using false information in our PR. I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders. I dunno if we need to be that specific. I doubt people take the '5th place' wording as literal. It is more to get a sense of Wikipedia's popularity online rather than stating specifically where we are. Though, perhaps a more imprecise wording like 'in the top 10' might be a better offer. Then, more accurate wording would one of the top ten sites by traffic. Which still says a lot about Wikipedia's popularity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 04/09/11 1:54 AM, Svip wrote: On 9 April 2011 10:45, Federico Leva (Nemo)nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14 [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org We've been using comScore data for years, now: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia Alexa is not a reliable source. While Alexa may not be a reliable source, comScore does not provide Wikipedia's position among Internet websites. So using the wording '5th place' is either relying on unreliable sources or made up. The advantage of a term like top ten is that it allows for short term variation between information sources and over time. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
On 04/09/2011 11:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: On 04/09/11 1:54 AM, Svip wrote: On 9 April 2011 10:45, Federico Leva (Nemo)nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14 [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org We've been using comScore data for years, now: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia Alexa is not a reliable source. While Alexa may not be a reliable source, comScore does not provide Wikipedia's position among Internet websites. So using the wording '5th place' is either relying on unreliable sources or made up. The advantage of a term like top ten is that it allows for short term variation between information sources and over time. Not just that, but there are a number of issues related to sticking with comScore and not having broader approach: * Alexa may be unreliable, mostly for smaller sites, but: ** Wikipedia is not small site, as well as top ten sites aren't. Bigger numbers give more relevant conclusions. ** It gives good clue of what the trends are. I remember that Wikipedia was indeed at the fifth place in 2009 or so. And it shows drop from the fifth place, which has relation with other observable trends. ** People are going to Alexa to check trends and ratings. We can dispute reliability, but we can't dispute overall impression based on differences between our source and Alexa. * Baidu is on the 6th place on Alexa [1], counting Google at 1st, Youtube at 4th and Blogger at 5th place. QQ is at 10th place counting three Google's sites. And none of them is at the top 10 list on comScore. Willing to hear reasons for that. Saying that we are one of the top ten sites would save us from likely wrong impression that we are trying to give false information because of whatever reason. [1] http://www.alexa.com/topsites ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
