Ronnie,
The reported –21.23% drop seems to be based on a comparison of the December
2021 figure (4,970,053 edits) to the January 2021 figure (6,309,228 edits):
4,970,053/6,309,228 = 78.77% (so the reduction from January 2021 to
December 2021 is 100% – 78.77% = 21.23%).
However, highlighting
Hello,
Indeed, there is not much we can do about the "snippets" aspect.
Besides that: I too worry about the general quality of Wikipedia
content, about minimum standards and whether we (always) meet such
standards.
Also, sometimes a Wikipedia article is much too long.
Would a "quality campaign"
Actually, I see an issue with snippets.
Wikipedia articles have very variable quality. Some are reasonably good and
contain reliable information which is confirmed by reliable sources listed
in the article. But a lot have information which is promotional, POV,
unconfirmed, or outright false. In
Hi Xavier and all,
You say, "even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation»
to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its
own content legacies"
It seems these rebranding efforts are in fact ongoing after all. According
to Meta,[1] the fundraising
Thanks for all very interesting comments, I take it as support, that my
hunch can be correct, that we are losing readers as a consequence of new
ways to find information on the internet has emerged ("snippets", new
tools and google code that gives better data then Wikipedia, and that
links to
Introduction
By establishing HTML metadata standards and defining new XML-based file
formats, content providers, e.g., Wikipedia, could specify data, resources, and
endpoints (e.g., XML-RPC endpoints) in webpage metadata for search engines,
e.g., Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Google, to provide
Sobieski<mailto:adamsobie...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:31 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: RE: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are we losing our readers?
Nathan,
All,
I wonder if Google maintains provenance for their “snippets” and whether
Yeah, although I think every user will, eventually, actually open our pages
several times, although less frequently because of smarter search engines.
Vito
Il giorno sab 8 gen 2022 alle ore 13:20 Gnangarra ha
scritto:
> Falling readers means less awareness of being able to edit, that means
>
Falling readers means less awareness of being able to edit, that means less
contributors, and less donations. Over the last 10 years we've put a lot
of effort and support into the basic contribution processes, but the
contributions need to shift to more of what our new audiences are expecting
Building on Francesc’s point:
This is also why [what is now known as] ‘Wikimedia Enterprise’ appears
twice in the Movement Strategy.[1] That is: to make sure that ‘downstream’
readers receive high quality Wikimedia knowledge (up to date, attributed…);
and also to create a new diversified revenue
Just a couple of minutes ago I wanted to point out while chatting that two
(shitty) singers work together because they work for the same major. A
bunch of years ago I had to open some Google result to find such info, now
I don't.
Loss of readers is not bad in itself, it can be if there's a
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been
identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers
for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools
(some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google
search
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped
21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org [1]
The numbers at
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:47 AM James Heilman wrote:
> Well the story around Osmosis has further details... They released their
> first 300 or so vidoes under an open license and they were within Wikipedia
> articles for a while. You can still see them on Commons here:
>
>
Well the story around Osmosis has further details... They released their
first 300 or so vidoes under an open license and they were within Wikipedia
articles for a while. You can still see them on Commons here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Osmosis
A number of folks
Hi/Bona nit
Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in
university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already had
the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some
channels that he already had: our sister projects.
kimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are we losing our readers?
I think a lot has been said on this list over the last few years about a couple
of major factors that probably still play a role:
* Shift to mobile device usage and how that affects Wikipedia usage and
pa
I think a lot has been said on this list over the last few years about a
couple of major factors that probably still play a role:
* Shift to mobile device usage and how that affects Wikipedia usage and
pageview stats
* Availability of more and more "snippets" in search engine results, which
often
Thanks, James. I think this is an important point. So we could say we
have lost a part of acedemia.
More to the point, we seem to have failed to integrate course materials
and multimedia formats into Wikipedia articles.
Could we try and create some of these and integrate them into articles
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the
medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they
study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like
Osmosis, which are basically
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of
putting it.
--
Gohary (ircpresident)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn wrote:
> Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created
> traffic. Do we know more about this?
>
> Best Regards,
Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created
traffic. Do we know more about this?
Best Regards,
Jürgen.
Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
> Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years.
> It appears our readership peaked around
Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. It
appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during the
pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This despite
much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to the pandemic.
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many
people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on
Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare
with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey
about this which
We have seen several search results where Wikipedia search rank have gone
down. It is not only me but several other Wikmedians have found the same,
so it may not be a user preference/behaviour issue. It is also not only for
specific search such as "vaccine", where Google would show WHO.
শুক্র, 7
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten ):When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all
show a decrease of views of
26 matches
Mail list logo
