What’s up with Index in January 2023?
Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
171–179 of 179 posts
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#172Are people really reading Youtube, pornhub, facebook, Instagram pages this frequently or are these misclicks from search result page?
Stuff like this makes me realize how different people use the internet than I do
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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).
By the way, everywhere I've worked the traffic to mobile native has been around 3% I think. Engagement is much higher than with other channels mind you, so maybe that's it.
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Among Britannica's authors are Einstein, Trotsky, Asimov, Milton Friedman, and many such others. [1] In Wikipedia, Trotsky himself could not opine on e.g. communism. By contrast, the words of a random junior journalist in an opinion piece published on a newspaper website are perfectly legitimate for publication in an article on communism. Wikipedia is simply a very different sort of project than an encyclopedia. [1]…
Perhaps you misunderstand what “encyclopedia” means? Britannica itself classify Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia/The-kinds-of-...)
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#175Here 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...
Some cookie banners, when you reject everything they're asking to put on your computer, are redirecting you on this page.
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.
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among Britannica's authors are Einstein, Trotsky, Asimov, Milton Friedman, and many such others. [1] In Wikipedia, Trotsky himself could not opine on e.g. communism. By contrast, the words of a random junior journalist in an opinion piece published on a newspaper website are perfectly legitimate for publication in an article on communism. Wikipedia is simply a very different sort of project than an encyclopedia. [1]…
Perhaps you misunderstand what “encyclopedia” means? Britannica itself classify Wikipedia as an encyclopedia ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia/The-kinds-of-... )
Now you're shifting the goal posts to semantics. You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect. Britannica is written by field domain experts, many of them world leading. Wikipedia is instead, as you described, a collection of citations of other work, written by random people, and which relies heavily on the US media as a source for any sort of cultural, social, or political topic.
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...
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you misunderstand what “encyclopedia” means? Britannica itself classify Wikipedia as an encyclopedia ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia/The-kinds-of-... )
Now you're shifting the goal posts to semantics. You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect. Britannica is written by field domain experts, many of them world leading. Wikipedia is instead, as you described, a collection of citations of other work, written by random people, and which relies heavily on the US media as a source for any sort of cultural, social, or political topic.…
> You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect.
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.
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you're shifting the goal posts to semantics. You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect. Britannica is written by field domain experts, many of them world leading. Wikipedia is instead, as you described, a collection of citations of other work, written by random people, and which relies heavily on the US media as a source for any sort of cultural, social, or political topic.…
> You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect. 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.
It'd go just fine. Here's a quick Google Scholar search for the header of the MLA citation standard for unattributed Britannica articles. [1] There are thousands. Encyclopedias are fine sources, but Wikipedia is not. Encyclopedias biggest shortcoming would be that for specialized topics one would of course be far better served by books, papers, and the likes.
[1] - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=%22Britannica,...
Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Men get tasked with violence at the behest of women far too often, imo.