Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-11/Traffic report

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ottawahitech in topic Discuss this story

Discuss this story

  • Saying, "the English language Wikipedia is very often the American Wikipedia" is misleading here. Although it is not (I think) what is meant) this wording could be interpreted by some Signpost readers to mean that there's an American bias in the encyclopedia article's text. Logically speaking the neutrality of the encyclopedia need not be connected in any way to the traffic report, even if the report shows high traffic among articles with particular national interests. (Easy to see if you consider a 100% perfectly neutral encyclopedia would still show national trends in the article traffic so long as some countries have different numbers of people online.) Our editors are doing a decent job at staying neutral nationally in their writing. There *is* American bias in the encyclopedia (in topics, in depth of coverage, and even in language and interpretation) but I cannot get worked up over the first two and consider them non-issues. That kind of bias will always be proportional to the national ratios of our readership so long as we keep the encyclopedia open. (People write and read about what interests them.) The latter two are of much more concern and overall we do a decent if imperfect job at staying neutral with them so I really wouldn't want anybody to falsely believe we outright fail there. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how the original text was misleading, it is an opinion, but not an unknown or radical one. He could have gone as far to say its the American Male wikipedia.--Milowenthasspoken 13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Jason Quinn: You do notice that Milowent says "as far as viewers are concerned," right? He's not talking about the editors or coverage, just what gets the most views! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Not too "American" if we use "quaterback" as a noun. <g>. Collect (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Seriously, how did it take ten days for the Super Bowl article to be updated to reflect that this year's was the most-watched in TV history? I meant to do it myself and got really busy, finally remembering it when I saw this. And since I don't know where they got those really large numbers for List of most watched television broadcasts in the United States, someone needs to go fix that one too. I have it formatted but don't know what number to put there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Here is this week's top-20 by edits and editors. This week different IP address editors are counted as different editors instead of the same one.
article edits editors weighted_rank
TransAsia Airways Flight 235 469 116 37.85
The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water 319 119 35.62
Deaths in 2015 346 103 35.28
Bob Simon 215 107 32.61
Brian Williams 350 56 31.78
2015 Chapel Hill shooting 317 60 31.64
Better Call Saul 182 90 30.7
Kayla Mueller 233 68 30.63
Jupiter Ascending 174 84 30.08
57th Annual Grammy Awards 207 60 29.3
Muath al-Kasasbeh 186 53 28.06
Kingsman: The Secret Service 140 63 27.39
Fifty Shades of Grey (film) 188 44 27.15
Beck 120 70 27.04
Shamitabh 134 60 26.91
When Will You Marry? 122 56 26.06
Dean Smith 121 56 26.02
2015 Africa Cup of Nations 136 49 26
RadioShack 212 31 25.89
2015 Cricket World Cup 157 38 25.47

If you want to see this regularly, please support my bot request to automate its production. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes, this is the American Wikipedia. The Hindi-language WIkipedia is an Indian Wikipedia. The Hebrew-language Wikipedia is an Israeli Wikipedia. If you're not a white male American, take pride in bringing something unique to Wikipedia; we need you, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Chris troutman: It is not only a question of adding more (less popular) content. It is also a question of having to fight much harder to keep this content, at least from my anecdotal observation. But don’t take my word for it, check these 2014 Signpost comments from those who try to save content daily. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Then of course there is also the matter of how the subjects are portrayed. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply