51–60 of 179 posts
Would have never guessed mobile percentage is this high.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Good point. I just checked the Hindi page ( https://pageviews.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.)
Are people really reading Youtube, pornhub, facebook, Instagram pages this frequently or are these misclicks from search result page?
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.
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.
Would have never guessed mobile percentage is this high.
Why does a rapper who's been dead for years occupy the eighth position? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXTentacion
Why does a rapper who's been dead for years occupy the eighth position? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXTentacion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
(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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they go accidentally on that page after searching for youtube on google/in their address bar?
Does the Google info sidebar ping Wikipedia every time "YouTube" is queried? Would that show up in these statistics?