Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
pageviews.wmcloud.org
pageviews.wmcloud.org
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
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.
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.
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_English-s...
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!
EDIT: Ah, her daughter was released from prison today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67833339
She may have killed her mother but doing so was not too far from self defense in my mind.
I hope the doctors involved got a decent reprimand for that too...
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.
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).
There is a good reason people want government institutions to jealously guard this right.
The government is very fickle with giving out the death penalty.
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia...
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.
(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)
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufact...
> "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.
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.
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...
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.
But is it? Here in the UK, we have the National Health Service with completely free treatment except for some combinations of basic services and higher personal income levels. Yet, most employers for higher-up jobs provide part or even full private healthcare. A quick search on a jobs board shows some examples:
Train driver at Great Western Railways:
...all GWR colleagues enjoy a range of benefits including... [a] company-sponsored health care plan...
...Also, to reward your hard work you’ll get... Private medical care...
...Benefits... Private medical insurance...
> This is proving my case. You don't need sock puppets if your modus operandi is to make neutral edits.
I agree with you here. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to defend user 'GoldDragon' or those like them. It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned. In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.
* this one is unintentionally hilarious, as they also promise company-funded 'life assurance'. If only :)
Only you can:
> "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees"
Implies the employees et al are paying part or all of the premiums themselves in the alternative.
> "private health insurance"
Implies they get public health insurance in the alternative.
> It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned.
Selection bias is all you need to control the world though.
> In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.
Newspapers are notoriously biased. See Yellow Journalism etc. It's the same practice and the same problem -- a lie of omission is a type of lie, not a type of honesty. They'd like to lie, but don't want to get caught in a lie or sued for libel, so they lead you down the garden path.
"Technically Correct: The Best Kind of Correct." Because that's how you get away with something. But getting away with something isn't neutrality, it's the system having a bias in your favor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The inevitable occasional mistake does not bring it down to the level of arbitrary internet resources.
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!'
What sources do you think Britannica can use which are not available to Wikipedia?
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#P...
There was a pretty interesting paper written looking at the biases in Wiki vs Britannica. [1] You might find it interesting.
[1] - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-experts-or-collective-intellig...
I just pointed out that Britannica (like Wikipedia) is not a primary source. “Primary source” have a specific meaning and encyclopedias are not primary sources - regardless of the editorial process and the credentials of the authors.
Try citing Britannica in an academic paper and se how well it goes.
[1] - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=%22Britannica,...
So that if you write "youtube" without the .com the browser will direct you to wikipedia instead.
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.
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=Noël,Wei...
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)
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?
Both are ~1.5B population countries
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.
It certainly doesn’t deserve all those views even if they were real
I couldn't find views by country broken down anywhere? I wonder how much of the Cricket world cup views are coming from India?
OT I know, but I really don't get the whole native app thing, particualry for non-profits or charities.
Could that be due to bots/scrapers?
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...
I'm using an extension to hide them automatically so I can't give you a proper example but I've experienced it in the past.
The ones from Webedia maybe? I know they have the worst interpretation of the GDPR.
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)
Mmmh... biscuits...
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.
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.
Blimey.
https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/167xb3t/does_any...
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedi...