[HN Gopher] Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
___________________________________________________________________
Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
Author : secondary_op
Score : 272 points
Date : 2023-12-30 07:22 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pageviews.wmcloud.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (pageviews.wmcloud.org)
| error9348 wrote:
| Would have never guessed mobile percentage is this high.
| dangwu wrote:
| A lot of these pages look movie related, so it's likely people
| looking stuff up on their phones after watching something.
| ProxCoques wrote:
| I make it 88% mobile web, 9% desktop, 3% mobile app (why
| Wikipedia wastes money on a mobile native app is beyond me, but
| hey).
| riversflow wrote:
| Its one of my absolute favorite apps on my iPad. The app has
| a widget that tells you the top articles in the last 24h and
| the number of views. Very interesting "news" source.
| sgt wrote:
| Surely 3% of total traffic for something like Wikipedia
| (hyperpopular) is well worth the investment?
| ProxCoques wrote:
| Only if they think that 3% would not otherwise use
| Wikipedia. But in reality that 3% would just use the web
| app instead, no? In fact if they put a web link in the app
| store, would anyone even notice the difference?
|
| OT I know, but I really don't get the whole native app
| thing, particualry for non-profits or charities.
| sgt wrote:
| But then you don't understand charities... that money has
| to be spent. And also builds competence. Maybe 3% now,
| but with a goal of 10%? Then we are talking millions of
| people.
| ProxCoques wrote:
| Not sure I follow. Regardless of competence or whether
| "money has to be spent", if that 3% did not have a native
| mobile app to download, they would just use the mobile
| web app instead. Why not spend the money on the non-
| native offering and make that better?
| sgt wrote:
| Well, hard to say without knowing what goes on inside of
| the Wiki foundation, but I assume their ambition is to
| continue growing the native app. After all, most people
| prefer a native app feel (they don't necessarily always
| use it though - partly due to apps sometimes not reaching
| their true potential, and sometimes due to discovery is
| harder).
| ggm wrote:
| Most economies predominantly use mobile devices. We're
| atypical. Actually, almost all my non work usage is tablet so
| maybe I am typical.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Good opportunity to reflect upon all the other ways that one
| (and one's social bubble) might not be as typical as they might
| think.
| issung wrote:
| Anyone have any idea why this one is at the top today with almost
| double the 2nd entry?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard
|
| EDIT: Ah, her daughter was released from prison today.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67833339
| Vecr wrote:
| Killer got out of jail.
| jurmous wrote:
| Maybe you should read the related Wikipedia article.
| casperb wrote:
| I had the same question. Seems like the perpetrator (her
| daughter?) was released from prison yesterday:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=Dee+Dee+Blanchard&sca_esv=59...
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I'm surprised none of you have heard of the story. It was
| subject to a pretty interesting dramatisation only a year or
| two ago.
|
| She may have killed her mother but doing so was not too far
| from self defense in my mind.
| casperb wrote:
| I live in the Netherlands, probably not talked about over
| here. But second, I try to avoid the news. Glad I missed
| this one :)
| stavros wrote:
| She _didn 't_ kill her mother, though. She had someone else
| do it. I guess that's the problem, and I think he's still
| in prison.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Yeah, that's true. Also the preplanning aspect of it. I
| think if she'd have just snapped and killed her mum
| herself it wouldn't have gone to court. But someone who
| lived through that doubtlessly had a strange view of the
| world so judging her behaviour though any rational lens
| is probably slightly unfair.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Seems like she (daughter) planned it or at least provided the
| weapon, but the person who actually did it was her boyfriend
| and is now serving life without possibility of parole. Kind
| of a crazy sentence considering the 'victim' truly had it
| coming (tortured her daughter for years, with unnecessary
| surgeries, feeding tube, etc)
| londons_explore wrote:
| > unnecessary surgeries
|
| I hope the doctors involved got a decent reprimand for that
| too...
| OJFord wrote:
| The only example of surgery I saw was Botox for and then
| removal of the saliva gland, after the mother induced
| drooling by applying an anaesthetic prior to the doctor's
| examination.
|
| So yes there's some suspicions not reported or not well
| followed through on by some doctors and police, but it's
| clearly not that cut and dry, it was quite a fraud.
| layer8 wrote:
| The Wikipedia page also mentions that "Tubes were
| implanted in her ears to control her myriad purported ear
| infections".
| OJFord wrote:
| I missed that one, but my point wasn't that there was
| only one - it was that the mother was lying about things,
| doing deliberate fraudulent things to get that medical
| attention and treatment for the daughter.
|
| For the ear infection, maybe she just lied that the
| daughter kept complaining of hot itchy ears etc., or did
| something to them so that she _did_ poke and scratch them
| (and the doctor could see that).
| thret wrote:
| But her boyfriend got life in prison.
| m463 wrote:
| Quite a read though...
| incompatible wrote:
| I assume that plenty of people were released from prison today:
| it doesn't explain why so many people want to look up this one.
| episteme wrote:
| It makes sense once you've read the article. Not everyday a
| person who has been through something so unusual and awful
| with multiple media interpretations gets released.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| That page reads like a blog or a murder novel, not a wikipedia
| article
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| That happens to basically everything the true crime followers
| get their hands on. They are all about narrative.
| casperb wrote:
| Fascinating how many pages in the top 20 of today of topics I
| have never heard of. Seems like a great way to see what is being
| talked about in the culture, without depending on the news?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Well, it's at least somewhat of a representation of the
| collective consciousness in the English-speaking part of the
| world. Perhaps less so for the rest of the world.
| casperb wrote:
| Yes, but you can switch the Wikipedia site. I am from the
| Netherlands and I also checked the Dutch wiki, and over there
| I also found some interesting articles I did not know about.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Yeah, but that also requires your local edition of
| Wikipedia to be good and useful, which is not always the
| case.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Top title at this moment is 'Vijayakanth', Indian actor-
| politician who died on Dec. 28. Pageviews not broken-down by
| region but probable that isn't English-speaking interest.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Aren't there like 120 million people in India who speak
| English, with about 80 million who have it as their first
| or second language?
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Good point. I just checked the Hindi page (https://pagevi
| ews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=hi.wikipedia...) and
| the top #views there is 15,500. He was an actor since
| 1952, died of COVID, and Modi was among the thousands
| condoling. (Maybe the HI. site isn't so useful.)
| abhinavk wrote:
| He was from a Tamil-speaking state of India and not so
| commonly known in other regions. But Tamil Wikipedia page
| also has just 30K views compared to English's 350K.
| vladms wrote:
| As another post exemplifies, at least some of these pages are
| results of people seeing the news and looking something related
| on Wikipedia. So this, gets you a filter of "what are many
| people looking after reading the news". Wonder if it is an
| improvement from scanning the actual news titles...
| casperb wrote:
| Yeah, I thought of the same after posting. Maybe it can
| surface items that go around in specific groups that are
| being ignored by the media, but most seem to be also big in
| the news.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| I noticed "Reacher (TV Series)" showed up. I guess we finally
| have a way to figure out what people are watching....
| paraselene_ wrote:
| Most likely because 2nd season just dropped recently.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Huh, didn't know they finally migrated all the tools to a
| centralized place, wmcloud.org.
| Fuzzwah wrote:
| A few more filters would be great. Being able to exclude
| movies/tv/etc would take this from interesting to useful (IMHO).
| katamarimambo wrote:
| Cookie (Informatique) is always the daily most viewed page in
| french, and by large margin. This does not seem to be the case
| for any other language. I wonder why
| casperb wrote:
| Maybe some big website refers to that page in their cookie
| banner?
| Biganon wrote:
| My guess would be that every French government website uses the
| same cookie banner and it includes a link to the Wikipedia
| article
|
| Mmmh... biscuits...
| hashar wrote:
| We have that filed in our bug tracker back in July 2022 and
| when I looked at the issue (
| https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T313114#8093706 ) almost
| all of the traffic came from a handful of IP addresses. Thus
| it is most probably some kind of probe, maybe to check
| whether internet is reachable.
|
| As a result of the bug above, the entry is filtered out when
| post processing, but the page view dataset used for
| https://pagevews.wmcloud.org/ relies on the raw aggregated
| data.
| np_tedious wrote:
| Are people really reading Youtube, pornhub, facebook, Instagram
| pages this frequently or are these misclicks from search result
| page?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Bingo
| secondary_op wrote:
| Yeah, try choosing Platform: Mobile app
|
| https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia...
| phyphy wrote:
| I do it. I don't know how to explain why but these pages
| sometimes contain more information than people think. Like the
| critics, key-people, government involvement, controversies,
| etc. And the best part is that I can trust this information to
| be neutral and factually correct.
| avarun wrote:
| > And the best part is that I can trust this information to
| be neutral and factually correct.
|
| Relatively compared to other sources, sure, but not
| absolutely. Wikipedia supereditors have their own biases that
| are obvious when reading articles on topics one has expert
| knowledge on.
| berkes wrote:
| What other accessible resources are there that would give a
| higher neutrality, and factual correctness?
|
| (I include "accessible" deliberate, because while I like
| reading scientific papers, they are hard to read and often
| difficult to get or impossible to find)
| AlbertRosen wrote:
| You can find most scientific papers on Sci-hub.
| carschno wrote:
| Obviously, Wikipedia editors are human too. As opposed to
| most other resources, however, Wikipedia has the primary
| goal to provide high quality information. The contributors
| are not perfect, but they come astonishingly close to
| achieving that goal.
|
| Of course, you should never blindly trust any source, but
| in spite of the simple fact that every author has their own
| "biases", Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness
| exceeds that of most other internet resources by far.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Wikipedia's general level of trustworthiness exceeds
| that of most other internet resources by far.
|
| This can be true of technical articles, especially
| covering popular subjects which are likely to be reviewed
| by enough people that errors get removed.
|
| Anything even tangentially related to politics is
| hopeless.
| jl6 wrote:
| Not completely true. There are two different types of
| political articles: 1) Those where two opposing edit-
| warring factions have battled each other into a
| compromise/stalemate, resulting in a passably neutral
| article, and 2) Those where a single aligned group of
| edit-warriors have gained supremacy and have come to
| gatekeep the article against any opposing perspectives.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's worse than that. It affects the entire site. Here's
| an example:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manuf
| act...
|
| > "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire
| cost of funding health insurance premiums of its
| employees, their survivors and GM retirees, _as the US
| did not have a universal health care system_. "
|
| This is an article about automakers. The reason they
| picked up future healthcare costs is because they're
| _future_ healthcare costs, which lets the bosses pay
| themselves bonuses from current profits and then the
| company can go bankrupt from unfunded future obligations
| after they 've moved on to another company. The reason
| isn't that the US doesn't have a universal healthcare
| system, and even if it did, they could have provided
| supplemental insurance etc., and would still have wanted
| to because that too is a future cost instead of a present
| day one.
|
| The reason that qualifier is there is as a dig against
| the US healthcare system, in a way that aligns with
| particular partisans. The opposing partisan might have
| inserted something like "as the US has high healthcare
| costs as a result of regulatory dysfunction" though of
| course neutrality would have been to say neither of them
| because it's an article about automakers rather than
| healthcare systems.
|
| And yet it's there, and that kind of thing is all over
| the place.
| avar wrote:
| You're only reading that as a political jab because
| you're too entranced in American partisan politics.
|
| Americans are a minority among the portion of the world's
| population that can read English easily enough to consult
| the English language Wikipedia.
|
| When doing so, the rest us can use a brief reminder of
| what's ultimately a rather quaint aspect of the US: The
| fact that healthcare costs are a significant concern of
| employers.
|
| The source cited for the paragraph you're picking apart
| is an article that's contrasting US automakers and their
| international competition.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I think you're on the right track here. For instance, I
| have no idea whether or not Brazil has a universal
| healthcare system, so if the article was about a company
| in Brazil, such a note would be relevant to me. The USA
| population includes approximately between a quarter and a
| half of the world's English speakers, depending on
| whether you count English as a second language or not.
| Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the majority of
| English speakers won't have a personal connection to the
| USA or necessarily have knowledge of their politics.
|
| As for this specific article about the Big Three, the
| statement in question was added by user GoldDragon[1],
| who was banned for 'sock-puppetry' in 2011 and, by their
| edit history, appears to have hailed from Ontario,
| Canada.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Three
| _(automo...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > For instance, I have no idea whether or not Brazil has
| a universal healthcare system, so if the article was
| about a company in Brazil, such a note would be relevant
| to me.
|
| The problem with this theory isn't just that it's much
| more widely known internationally that the US has a
| private insurance system, it's that that is already
| implied by the rest of the sentence. US employees getting
| their healthcare coverage from their employer means that
| they're not getting it from the government. Specifically
| calling it out is to make a political point.
|
| > As for this specific article about the Big Three, the
| statement in question was added by user GoldDragon[1],
| who was banned for 'sock-puppetry' in 2011 and, by their
| edit history, appears to have hailed from Ontario,
| Canada.
|
| This is proving my case. You don't need sock puppets if
| your modus operandi is to make neutral edits.
|
| And being from Canada doesn't imply non-partisanship --
| "the US should have a universal healthcare system" is a
| common political opinion in Canada.
| canarypilot wrote:
| Removing context to make a selective argument is
| intellectually dishonest.
|
| The article contrasts the operating environment of "Big
| Three" auto-manufacturers across countries. It compares
| manufacture costs in Germany and Japan with those in the
| US, and the paragraph you cite links through to a (2004)
| article in which it is estimated that pensions and health
| insurance combined add $1,784 to the cost of a car in the
| US.
|
| You need to subtract some contradictory numbers in the
| article to come to a number you can ascribe to health
| insurance, but somewhere between $400 and $800 fits a
| quoted "$900 will flow to [pension] funds".
|
| Given this context it is reasonable to argue that General
| Motors is (or at least was in 2004) at a competitive
| disadvantage to manufacturers in Japan or Germany as a
| result of the US having no universal healthcare system.
|
| Lamentably for your position, just because there are
| political decisions involved that bring about
| consequences, factual discussion of those consequences is
| not itself necessarily political.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Given this context it is reasonable to argue that
| General Motors is (or at least was in 2004) at a
| competitive disadvantage to manufacturers in Japan or
| Germany as a result of the US having no universal
| healthcare system.
|
| Japanese and German carmakers also make cars in the US.
| The primary distinction isn't that the company has to
| provide healthcare, which they all do, and even if they
| _were_ manufacturing in different countries they still
| would because someone would have to pay the taxes that
| pay for healthcare instead of the insurance premiums. The
| primary distinction is that foreign automakers have non-
| union shops in the South whereas domestic automakers have
| union shops in and around Detroit, and management
| discovered that promising generous future benefits is a
| way to placate the UAW without cutting into present-day
| profits, with rather deleterious consequences for the
| company 's future.
|
| This still has nothing to do with the healthcare system
| except insofar as it was a category of future benefit
| that could be promised. The same thing would have
| happened (and did) by promising future pension payments
| or other benefits. The proportionality of healthcare vs.
| pension payments and other benefits wouldn't have
| materially affected the result, they'd have just been
| promised more of something else.
| aierou wrote:
| Moreover, Wikipedia relies heavily on news articles as
| sources. It goes without saying that news outlets are not
| well known for holding neutral positions.
| adlpz wrote:
| > And the best part is that I can trust this information to
| be neutral and factually correct.
|
| Excuse me, what?
|
| Wikipedia is great. But assuming it's _neutral and factually
| correct_ is delusional.
|
| Like with every single organization made up of human beings,
| power dynamics and censorship are part of Wikipedia.
|
| It's still the less bad one, but no one should trust it
| _that_ blindly.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| Is it even "the less bad one"? I guess it's not if you're
| on the wrong side of censorship.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Trust is a concept around personal choice and not facts.
| The feeling that you can trust something _is_ what trust
| is.
|
| For different people to get to that feeling means different
| things. A lot of people place trust in certain figures of
| authority, in politics or on social media. The reasons for
| which they do so differ wildly and very often have very
| little to do with ground truth (although I suspect most
| people would find that hard to admit).
|
| When somebody says they can trust Wikipedia to be factually
| correct that mostly is a reflection of choices and what
| they believe helps them to navigate the world, in a way
| that is manageable and reasonable to them. Given that time
| is always a constraint to a varying degree, I think you
| could do a lot worse if being less wrong is your goal.
| carschno wrote:
| You might have an absolutist view on the meaning of
| neutrality. Of course, you can argue philosophically that
| absolute neutrality does not exist in theory. What
| Wikipedia does achieve in practice, though, is a very
| successful attempt to provide balanced and well researched
| information on an incredible number of topics.
|
| The inevitable occasional mistake does not bring it down to
| the level of arbitrary internet resources.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Wikipedia, unlike more classical encyclopedias such as
| e.g. Britannica, is not a primary source, by design. On
| anything tangentially related to topics like politics
| it's obligated to rely on sources like the US media which
| make no effort to even feign neutrality or balance. And
| of course these sources are then cited by editors who,
| similarly, have little interest in even feigning balance,
| beyond some minimal pretext.
|
| The ideal of checks and balances keeping the system
| relatively neutral would only work if there was a
| relative balance of ideological views among overactive
| editors. And on that, I'm reminded of that line from the
| Blues Brothers, 'We have all types of music here -
| country _and_ western! '
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Brittanica is not a primary source either. Encyclopedias
| are considered tertiary sources. Encyclopedias are not
| supposed to perform original research but to aggregate
| and condense information from secondary sources.
|
| What sources do you think Britannica can use which are
| not available to Wikipedia?
| fifilura wrote:
| I think it could be some browser configuration, that your
| search setting points towards wikipedia.
|
| So that if you write "youtube" without the .com the browser
| will direct you to wikipedia instead.
| ImaCake wrote:
| I could see iOS safari doing this. It often has a suggested
| page when you type in the search/URL bar.
| narag wrote:
| Yes and also there are many that never use the address bar,
| they just google names. With this mindset, any text input
| with a lens icon is a way to reach pages... or sites... apps,
| stuff, whatever.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| People may be looking up details about these sites.
|
| Also, not for these specifically, but if someone tells me about
| a website I haven't heard of, and not sure if safe / SFW etc
| I'll usually checkout it's Wikipedia page first.
| atomicfiredoll wrote:
| They may be, but are this many people really looking up
| details about 2017's XXX: Return of Xander Cage? "XXX" makes
| a couple other appearances on the list, so I'm inclined to
| believe there really is a good amount of traffic being
| directed to Wikipedia by accident from search users.
| 55555 wrote:
| "Pornhub" alone gets 441 million searches monthly. A lot of
| people probably decide to randomly read the Wikipedia page.
| notatoad wrote:
| given the position of "sex" and "xxx" on the list, it seems
| like it's either misclicks, or just the worldwide population of
| teenage boys searching for things and ending up on wikipedia,
| probably because the site they're actually trying to get to is
| blocked.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Some strange entries - obviously news, sports, movies and current
| events will drive views but for the November 2023 monthly figures
| why are people reading about YouTube (3rd).
|
| I couldn't find views by country broken down anywhere? I wonder
| how much of the Cricket world cup views are coming from India?
| 7373737373 wrote:
| Maybe they go accidentally on that page after searching for
| youtube on google/in their address bar?
| spacemark wrote:
| Does the Google info sidebar ping Wikipedia every time
| "YouTube" is queried? Would that show up in these statistics?
| avarun wrote:
| Google is certainly caching those results on their own
| servers.
| ngc248 wrote:
| yep ... this is most likely the reason ... happened to me a
| lot of times
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Nothing like Jeffrey Dahmer being #1 for the year and Andrew Tate
| rounding out the top 25 to restore your faith in humanity. /s
| secondary_op wrote:
| It is not that bad (hint: check Logarithmic scale)
|
| https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedi...
| ulrischa wrote:
| Who looks at the pornhub page at wikipedia?
| Biganon wrote:
| People who type "pornhub" into Google and then misclick because
| they're unzipping at the same time
| krick wrote:
| Why is "Skathi (moon)" 12-th most popular in 2022?
| r721 wrote:
| Related /r/wikipedia/ discussion:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/167xb3t/does_any...
| tjpnz wrote:
| Why does a rapper who's been dead for years occupy the eighth
| position?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXTentacion
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I don't know much about rap, but I do know that dying young
| makes you very popular. When I was a teenager it was tupac.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| As long as he's on the list, he's not dead.
| Springtime wrote:
| Possibly the same reason why half a dozen other most popular
| pages (for all periods) have 'XXX' in them--from those Vin
| Diesel films (one of which holds the 18th most visited in
| Yearly), to a beer brand.
| a1o wrote:
| That along with the other triple X in the searches makes me
| think about high hormones teenager trying to search for
| something specifically and they have parental controls on their
| computer.
| 312c wrote:
| He has a large and fanatical fanbase despite having trapped his
| pregnant girlfriend in a room and beating her so severely her
| eyes swelled shut (which he would later brag about)... while
| out on bail for breaking into someone's house, pistol whipping
| them, and robbing them.
| xymostech wrote:
| 2 days ago (12/27), "Web Hosting Service" was the most common
| page visited, with <0.1% mobile (compared to >70% for the rest of
| the top 10). Did something happen that would cause this? Or is
| this a bot farm that's visiting wikipedia? Odd.
|
| Edit: Looks like there were also around 3m "automated" views to
| the page based on user agent. Maybe some bot script went awry but
| used non-bot user agents half the time?
| secondary_op wrote:
| I was trying to find about public interest in Christmas and found
| these tools, if you know any other feel free to share.
|
| There is also different tool that allows to plot wiki page views
| across many languages over time, [1] Google trends was also
| useful [3] (hint: click Include low search volume regions)
|
| Another interesting tool shows the pageviews geographic
| distribution across all languages to all Wikipedias, but has not
| been updated for years [2]
|
| [1]
| https://www.wikishark.com/?text_search=&values=9264937%2C245...
|
| [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WiViVi
|
| https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/animations/wivivi/wivi...
|
| https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPage...
|
| [3]
| https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Noel,Wei...
| kubanczyk wrote:
| Off-topic fact about your first ([1]) plot: more Russians
| celebrate Christmas on January 7th (Orthodox Church) than on
| December 25th.
| nr11_bullseye wrote:
| Interesting that the 31st and 34th entries "gingering" and
| "figging" were both linked in a popular reddit thread yesterday:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/m7x0zo5XzU
| mxmbrb wrote:
| That's a dead end link. Try to create an archive.org link.
| DougEiffel wrote:
| After thinking about it, those results are probably so high up
| because people are misspelling "fingering."
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| gingering is a word somewhere I know
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Fixed link:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/18tpie2/til_...
| phatskat wrote:
| Shout out to the Behind the Bastards episode - The Ballad of
| Eel Horse
|
| https://open.spotify.com/episode/1LT2cR70h366WwTzVZs2VB
| wildekek wrote:
| Looking at the November stats, you could conclude that the
| average internet user is a 20-year old Indian kid that likes
| cricket and porn.
| ta8903 wrote:
| You mean median, and that is probably a fact.
| nojvek wrote:
| Since Wikipedia is likely banned in China, we don't get those
| stats reflected.
|
| Both are ~1.5B population countries
| kapitanjakc wrote:
| The reason of so many entries being made up of "Indian
| interests", is because the cheap internet provided by Reliance
| Jio.
|
| Purely speculation on my part, but I have seen more internet
| presence of Indian public after Reliance Jio.
|
| That and affordable or cheap even Android phones being easily
| available.
|
| As there's 1.4 billion of us, it was bound to happen at some
| point, but I think Reliance Jio's cheap internet and easily
| available smartphones are the catalyst.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| I wonder what the results would look like without the Great
| Firewall of China.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Not much different if you are still counting the English
| Wikipedia.
| kiba wrote:
| There are billion of people in China. If you grant only
| 0.1% of 1.4118 billion can speak and read English, that's
| 1,411,800 individuals.
|
| However, if we take Wikipedia's claim at face value, it's
| actually ten million.[1]
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Engli
| sh-s...
| OJFord wrote:
| 'can speak and read a second language' doesn't mean
| they'd cause significant traffic to Wikipedia in that
| second language, that number would be some small fraction
| of that again.
| epipolar wrote:
| Although Jio was the one to trigger a step change in pricing,
| other telecom players eventually _had_ to offer data plans at
| competitive rates. I wouldn 't attribute these numbers to Jio
| alone, instead to generally cheap internet in India
| kapitanjakc wrote:
| Yup, very much agreed, as I said Jio was the catalyst.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The cost of my internet connection has little bearing on how
| much I browse Wikipedia.
|
| Even YouTube I watch with little regard to internet cost, since
| on 144p it's only 100 MB for an hour of video. Obviously I do
| pay attention to the quality setting, because the bill can get
| huge fast if on HD!
| da39a3ee wrote:
| Um, I think you need to rethink this comment bearing in mind
| that a large proportion of people in the world don't have the
| money for a monthly internet bill at all.
| butterNaN wrote:
| I would highly contest that. It's certainly not "The" reason,
| unless this is an advertisement. Jio is not even the cheapest
| option anymore in many places. I think your assessment is
| outdated. Indian people are at par with their Inrernet usage as
| the most of the world, it's just that there are a LOT of us in
| the world. That's "the" reason - Population.
| ioshaan wrote:
| Of course. It's the same reason why Global Worldwide top posts
| on Reddit overlap a lot with the Top posts for USA users.
| kapitanjakc wrote:
| Yeah
| paxys wrote:
| Jio only gained prominence in the early 2010s. While yes it did
| definitely help in getting more Indians access to cheap data
| plans, the country by and large has had a large English
| speaking population connected to the internet - enough to
| prominently show up on graphs - since well before that.
| hliyan wrote:
| I'm fairly certain that neither XXX movie franchise nor the XXXX
| beer are as popular as these views would suggest.
| lmpdev wrote:
| Drinking a XXXX right now
|
| It certainly doesn't _deserve_ all those views even if they
| were real
| cm2187 wrote:
| The numbers look surprising to me if not dodgy.
|
| Like why is "web hosting service" the number 1 result on 27th and
| not even on the list the day before or after. It isn't really a
| topical article.
|
| Also even for the topical articles, the movies and TV shows at
| the top aren't really major blockbusters. Or perhaps it is
| because the population that watches superhero movies doesn't go
| on wikipedia.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Quite a few of these looks weird, almost as if number of people
| are typing something into a search engine. The weirdest one to
| me are: YouTube, PornHub, XNXX and Facebook. It's almost like
| people are just typing these into their browsers address bar,
| but are for some reason redirected to Wikipedias search.
| plufz wrote:
| I don't mean to snark but a little depressive that it is all
| brands, celebrities, marvel movies, etc, right? I hope there is a
| long tail we don't see here where people look up more general
| knowledge. Would be interesting to see top views per category.
| magpi3 wrote:
| Most popular = lowest common denominator, but that is not
| really as bad as it sounds. It's perfectly possible that
| everyone clicking on these general interest topics is also
| reading about something more niche or educational at the same
| time, but because we are all not reading about the same
| educational thing those results don't show up.
| p3rls wrote:
| You can kinda see how the lightbulb appeared over Jimmy Wales
| head with Fandom
| arp242 wrote:
| "Most viewed" is a very incomplete statistic. I often "view"
| pages just to look up something like "is this film worth
| watching?" or "what else has this person directed and is worth
| watching?" - kind of like a reference similar to imdb, except
| without imdb's clunky interface.
|
| But this "view" isn't really a "read". There are other pages
| I've also read much more in-depth, and in terms of "time spent"
| it would probably rank much higher.
|
| I'm sure some people do read these pages more in-depth too, but
| there's no real way to tell who is using them merely as a
| reference and who is actually reading them.
|
| Back when phone books were common it was probably the most
| "viewed" book.
| mrweasel wrote:
| It's interesting that others seems to go the same route as I do
| for movies and TV shows and just use Wikipedia rather than IMDB.
| IMDB has become so awful to use and shows no sign of improving.
| Apparently IMDB don't believe that they have any competition and
| over the years people have just started to add the same
| information to Wikipedia.
| r721 wrote:
| If one has an IMDb account it's possible to get a "reference
| view" by default which looks better in my opinion (old IMDb-
| style): "Account Settings" - "Content Settings" - "Show
| reference view".
| layer8 wrote:
| IMDb is owned by Amazon. They use it for the Prime Video X-Ray
| functionality. IMDbPro is probably useful for some members of
| the industry (at $20 per month). Apart from that, the user
| ratings and reviews are still kind of useful.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| What i found interesting: if you switch to "yearly", most of the
| pages have almost 70-90% mobile visits, except the page on
| "Bible", which has only 3% mobile.
|
| Could that be due to bots/scrapers?
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Probably hindus ate not that interested in the bible.
| hinkley wrote:
| Demographics, most likely.
| atorodius wrote:
| I clicked on the YouTube wikipedia article. TIL that that is the
| 2nd most viewed website in the world! Crazy
| bvaldivielso wrote:
| One very curious thing I ran into today: this morning I woke up
| and when I checked my phone, the (Spanish) Wikipedia page for
| Cleopatra was open on my browser. I didn't myself open that
| intentionally, but I thought I must have accidentally tapped on
| some links while I was asleep, and ended up there.
|
| But now I see this website and it turns out that "Cleopatra" is
| consistently one of the most visited pages in the Spanish
| Wikipedia. Odd! I googled and it turns out that it's because it's
| one of the example queries in Google Assistant (source, in
| Spanish:
| https://www.elespanol.com/omicrono/software/20230118/cleopat...
| ). I must have tapped on it without realising. And like me,
| thousands of others, every day! Fascinating
| verelo wrote:
| Funny you mention that. I was also confused by this same
| experience! I was recently introduced to the theory that most
| of the internet is bot activity and very little legitimate user
| activity. I think from a pure ratio perspective that's very
| true, and this list made me ask "this is what people want to
| know about?" I was hoping to see people researching higher
| level queries, most of this seems like film and tv or fairly
| basic concepts like "sex".
| Retric wrote:
| Depends on what you mean by activity.
|
| Bots don't consume nearly as much bandwidth as people, they
| generally don't care about assets like images or videos and
| the don't download millions of copies of 100GB games. But
| they can make a very high volume of requests.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| Makes sense to me that only very popular and generic stuff
| makes the top of the list. Even if Wikipedia was used more
| for high level queries in aggregate, there's so many possible
| things people could be looking into that it's necessarily
| more spread out than whatever is popular this week.
| karaterobot wrote:
| So, mostly celebrities, media, and typos, like the rest of the
| internet. Fortunately, it's got a lot of other stuff too, and
| unlike the rest of the internet, you can just enter Wikipedia at
| the point of whatever you're looking up, without being bombarded
| by _recommended content_. It 's completely self-serve. I'm glad
| that Wikipedia is not yet incentivized to maximize daily active
| users--or some other dumb metric--otherwise this would all
| change.
| phatskat wrote:
| I don't think "gingering" is a typo given that figging is a few
| ranks underneath
| vmilner wrote:
| I'm always curious as to whether taking the top 1% (say) of
| articles in Wikipedia (ordered by view frequency over a year say)
| and possibly adding the articles that link to those to some depth
| (say 3 deep) would feel very different to the full version to
| most users.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| I would guess that 3 links deep to the top 1% would be nearly
| the whole site
| nedt wrote:
| It's really surprising how much of the entries are coming from
| linear TV. I think on the German stats it's around half the
| entries. Rest of the top entries is news & sports, many of them
| also pushed by linear TV. Maybe it's just the holiday season, but
| still interesting to see.
| squidbeak wrote:
| #37 Figging
|
| Blimey.
| gerdesj wrote:
| It's now 34 and now I know what it is I'm not looking up
| gingering at 31!
| mwexler wrote:
| I find it interesting that the top results are recent topics. In
| most cases, they appear to be folks getting context for news or
| other timely events, or something else they saw or heard about in
| the media.
|
| Yes long tail yadda yadda, but it's an interesting reflection of
| what we want to learn about or reference: actors, singers, recent
| movies, and every once in a while, something else.
|
| (Edit: fixed ambiguious wording)
| delduca wrote:
| On the yearly listing, Jeff Dahmer (serial killer) is the top
| one.
| nojvek wrote:
| For views 2022: I had some idea about Jeffrey Dahmer but holy
| mother of God, that article is chilling.
|
| https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia...
|
| Edit:
|
| It seems top read articles fall into following major categories.
|
| - Serial killers
|
| - Con(wo)men
|
| - Movies, Actors and Directors
|
| - Sports, and famous athletes
|
| - Big Tech apps/sites, and wealthy businessmen
|
| - null (not sure why it's so high)
| rafabulsing wrote:
| Re: null, possibly a similar effect to the Null Island[0]? I.e.
| bugs causing empty queries to search for null instead.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Island?wprov=sfla1
| mike31fr wrote:
| Here is something crazy:
|
| In France the "Cookies" Wikipedia article is always ranked 1st
| for most months of 2023, with a ridiculous amount times more
| views (x10, x100,...) than the 2nd one. It doesn't really make
| sense.
|
| Example:
| https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=fr.wikipedia...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-30 23:01 UTC)