Of course, there is more than one way to skin a potato, but it doesn't mean
that those ways are useful, desirable, or informative. You say that readers
are more likely to access people who are named, than people who are
notable, but isn't that relevant? If notable people are not named, then we
can
Hmm. I think the subject of what you call "audience bias" is far more
general than the tiny targeted area you're talking about. I'm pretty sure
that readers from Poland are thousands of times more likely to access the
Wikipedia article about [name any town in Poland] than readers in Indonesia
Hi Tilman,
I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my
question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your
message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to
research, not to stats that should be readily available.
From your answer
Hi Micru,
in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
stats (if not their long-term trend):
Hi,
Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
Regards,
Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
