Outdated manual

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Outdated manual

Milos Rancic-2
May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
between 6th and 8th place [1].

Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
next two things:

* We are out of reality.
* We are using false information in our PR.

I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere
again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders.

[1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Svip
On 9 April 2011 10:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
> between 6th and 8th place [1].
>
> Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
> next two things:
>
> * We are out of reality.
> * We are using false information in our PR.
>
> I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere
> again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders.

I dunno if we need to be that specific.  I doubt people take the '5th
place' wording as literal.  It is more to get a sense of Wikipedia's
popularity online rather than stating specifically where we are.
Though, perhaps a more imprecise wording like 'in the top 10' might be
a better offer.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Milos Rancic-2
On 04/09/2011 10:18 AM, Svip wrote:

> On 9 April 2011 10:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
>> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
>> between 6th and 8th place [1].
>>
>> Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
>> next two things:
>>
>> * We are out of reality.
>> * We are using false information in our PR.
>>
>> I would say that it is about repeating an information written somewhere
>> again and again. However, it is not so obvious to outsiders.
>
> I dunno if we need to be that specific.  I doubt people take the '5th
> place' wording as literal.  It is more to get a sense of Wikipedia's
> popularity online rather than stating specifically where we are.
> Though, perhaps a more imprecise wording like 'in the top 10' might be
> a better offer.

Then, more accurate wording would "one of the top ten sites by traffic".
Which still says a lot about Wikipedia's popularity.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14:
> [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org

We've been using comScore data for years, now:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia
Alexa is not a reliable source.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Svip
On 9 April 2011 10:45, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14:
>
>> [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
>
> We've been using comScore data for years, now:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia
> Alexa is not a reliable source.

While Alexa may not be a reliable source, comScore does not provide
Wikipedia's position among Internet websites.  So using the wording
'5th place' is either relying on unreliable sources or made up.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Ray Saintonge
On 04/09/11 1:54 AM, Svip wrote:

> On 9 April 2011 10:45, Federico Leva (Nemo)<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14
>>> [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
>> We've been using comScore data for years, now:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia
>> Alexa is not a reliable source.
> While Alexa may not be a reliable source, comScore does not provide
> Wikipedia's position among Internet websites.  So using the wording
> '5th place' is either relying on unreliable sources or made up.
>
The advantage of a term like "top ten" is that it allows for short term
variation between information sources and over time.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Milos Rancic-5
On 04/09/2011 11:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> On 04/09/11 1:54 AM, Svip wrote:
>> On 9 April 2011 10:45, Federico Leva (Nemo)<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Milos Rancic, 09/04/2011 10:14
>>>> [1] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
>>> We've been using comScore data for years, now:
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia
>>> Alexa is not a reliable source.
>> While Alexa may not be a reliable source, comScore does not provide
>> Wikipedia's position among Internet websites.  So using the wording
>> '5th place' is either relying on unreliable sources or made up.
>>
> The advantage of a term like "top ten" is that it allows for short term
> variation between information sources and over time.

Not just that, but there are a number of issues related to sticking with
comScore and not having broader approach:

* Alexa may be unreliable, mostly for smaller sites, but:
** Wikipedia is not small site, as well as top ten sites aren't. Bigger
numbers give more relevant conclusions.
** It gives good clue of what the trends are. I remember that Wikipedia
was indeed at the fifth place in 2009 or so. And it shows drop from the
fifth place, which has relation with other observable trends.
** People are going to Alexa to check trends and ratings. We can dispute
reliability, but we can't dispute overall impression based on
differences between our source and Alexa.

* Baidu is on the 6th place on Alexa [1], counting Google at 1st,
Youtube at 4th and Blogger at 5th place. QQ is at 10th place counting
three Google's sites. And none of them is at the top 10 list on
comScore. Willing to hear reasons for that.

Saying that we are one of the "top ten" sites would save us from likely
wrong impression that we are trying to give false information because of
whatever reason.

[1] http://www.alexa.com/topsites

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Orionist
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> * Alexa may be unreliable, mostly for smaller sites, but:
> ** Wikipedia is not small site, as well as top ten sites aren't. Bigger
> numbers give more relevant conclusions.
> ** It gives good clue of what the trends are. I remember that Wikipedia
> was indeed at the fifth place in 2009 or so. And it shows drop from the
> fifth place, which has relation with other observable trends.
> ** People are going to Alexa to check trends and ratings. We can dispute
> reliability, but we can't dispute overall impression based on
> differences between our source and Alexa.
>
> * Baidu is on the 6th place on Alexa [1], counting Google at 1st,
> Youtube at 4th and Blogger at 5th place. QQ is at 10th place counting
> three Google's sites. And none of them is at the top 10 list on
> comScore. Willing to hear reasons for that.

The main difference between the comScore and Alexa stats is what they
consider as "site". Alexa seems to be ranking top-level domains while
comScore groups websites that belong to one entity. That explains why
YouTube and Blogger are not on comScore's list, and the different order of
top websites. Also, comScore stats are for January 2010, before Google
pulled out of China, which maybe the reason Baidu didn't show up in the top
ten then. If you group websites on Alexa by entity you'll have Wikipedia.org
move from 8th to 6th place, and that without including other WMF sites, like
Wikimedia.org which is ranked 182. So the results may not be that different
after all, especially since our Alexa rank has been actually hovering around
7 for the past months (You can check Alexa rank history back to Q2 2009 by
clicking "Traffic stats" and from the drop down menu below the graph choose
"max".)

Despite all that, I still think saying that we are one of the "top-ten"
sites just to be on the safe side and avoid misunderstandings.

Regards,
--
Orionist
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Sue Gardner-2
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
> between 6th and 8th place [1].
>
> Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
> next two things:
>
> * We are out of reality.
> * We are using false information in our PR.

The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors,
the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google,
Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the
most recent available.

Thanks,
Sue

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

MZMcBride-2
Sue Gardner wrote:

> On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
>> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
>> between 6th and 8th place [1].
>>
>> Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
>> next two things:
>>
>> * We are out of reality.
>> * We are using false information in our PR.
>
> The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors,
> the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google,
> Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the
> most recent available.

As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying "Wikipedia is the
fifth most visited website" is still completely wrong, as the comScore data
is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of
Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

geni
On 10 April 2011 23:20, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying "Wikipedia is the
> fifth most visited website" is still completely wrong, as the comScore data
> is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of
> Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-)
>
> MZMcBride

Except we know that wikipedia gets the overwhelming majority of the traffic.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Sam Klein
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
>>> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
>>> between 6th and 8th place [1].

comScore, Alexa, &c use different methods.  comScore is not perfect,
and has known biases in its coverage, but it is a bit better than
Alexa in that regard.  (We used to rely on Alexa data and moved away
from it)

I would love better data - if you have a better source, or a better
way to describe the data from multiple sources, that would be a great
reason to update our public docs.  But just replacing comScore cites
with Alexa cites won't be an improvement.


MZM writes:
>> The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors,
<< are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia.
>
> As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying "Wikipedia is the
> fifth most visited website" is still completely wrong, as the comScore data
> is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis.

Those are all aggregates of multiple projects.  Most of the others use
a single TLD but they aren't single 'sites'.  [for SEO purposes, we
would probably do better if every project shared the same TLD the way
Google's do, but that's another thread.]

SJ

--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

theo10011
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:50 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
> >> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
> >> between 6th and 8th place [1].
> >>
> >> Repeating that it's on the 5th place says about us one or both of the
> >> next two things:
> >>
> >> * We are out of reality.
> >> * We are using false information in our PR.
>

Milos, It might also mean that the information being referred to, hasn't
been updated. The Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia had the same issue a while
ago when some of the stats were not up to date by a huge margin. The current
Wikipedia entry on English wikipedia quotes stats and the date it was taken
on, both are correct. It doesn't have to mean either of those two things.


> >
> > The top five websites as measured by comScore global unique visitors,
> > the industry standard for internet audience measurement, are: Google,
> > Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikimedia. That's February 2011 data, the
> > most recent available.
>
> As far as I understand this, that would mean that saying "Wikipedia is the
> fifth most visited website" is still completely wrong, as the comScore data
> is an aggregate of the various Wikimedia wikis. As the Director of
> Wikipedia, I would think this would be rather obvious to you. ;-)
>

I don't think Sue said "Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website". Its
'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data.


Theo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

MZMcBride-2
Theo10011 wrote:
> I don't think Sue said "Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website". Its
> 'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data.

I don't think you did your homework.

From <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterC/en>:
> We are the number five website in the world, with more than 400 million
> readers per month.

That was a personal appeal from Sue.

If you search wikimediafoundation.org for references to "fifth most", you'll
find plenty of results from Sue, Jimmy, Veronique, Erik, and others calling
Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world (it's in the general FAQ,
the Annual Plan FAQ, a recent press release, and in several job openings
postings that I can see off-hand).

What was your point again?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
Samuel Klein wrote:

> On 9 April 2011 01:14, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
>> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
>> between 6th and 8th place [1].
>
> comScore, Alexa, &c use different methods.  comScore is not perfect,
> and has known biases in its coverage, but it is a bit better than
> Alexa in that regard.  (We used to rely on Alexa data and moved away
> from it)
>
> I would love better data - if you have a better source, or a better
> way to describe the data from multiple sources, that would be a great
> reason to update our public docs.  But just replacing comScore cites
> with Alexa cites won't be an improvement.

I think the original complaint was that the Wikimedia Foundation constantly
touts hosting the "fifth most-visited site in the world" when it's (at best)
imprecise. I think the simplest solution is to just stop saying that (a
solution that someone else has already suggested in this thread).

Being accurate is important, especially to members of the Wikimedia
community. If you can't be accurate and precise, write in more generic terms
(e.g., "Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the Internet today").
Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a
difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or
the tenth?

> [for SEO purposes, we would probably do better if every project shared the
> same TLD the way Google's do, but that's another thread.]

Yes, Wikipedia seems to have a lot of difficulty with search engine ranking.
;-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

theo10011
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:38 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Theo10011 wrote:
> > I don't think Sue said "Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website". Its
> > 'Wikimedia Foundation sites' in comScore data.
>
> I don't think you did your homework.
>
> From <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:2010/SueLetterC/en>:
> > We are the number five website in the world, with more than 400 million
> > readers per month.
>
> That was a personal appeal from Sue.
>
> If you search wikimediafoundation.org for references to "fifth most",
> you'll
> find plenty of results from Sue, Jimmy, Veronique, Erik, and others calling
> Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world (it's in the general
> FAQ,
> the Annual Plan FAQ, a recent press release, and in several job openings
> postings that I can see off-hand).
>
> What was your point again?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I only meant in the previous post which I quoted. I didn't know you were
referring to off-list mentions of "fifth most".

I agree that there needs to be clarification on the usage of "fifth most" on
wmf wiki at least.


Theo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
2011/4/9 Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>:
> May someone update manual in which it is written that Wikipedia is the
> fifth site by traffic? For the most of 2010 and whole 2011 it has varied
> between 6th and 8th place [1].

WMF sites are the fifth popular web property in the world according to
comScore, where "web properties" are all sites operated by a single
entity. Indeed, WP by itself would still be -- as of February, 376M
out of 379M uniques go to Wikipedia.org; there's substantial audience
overlap with the other sites, the largest of which is Wiktionary.org
with 10.4M uniques

So, it's equally accurate to say that Wikipedia is the fifth most
popular web property (as stated e.g. in
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/1c/Key_Facts_wikipedia_March_2011.pdf
). It's inaccurate to say it is the fifth most popular website when
using the common definition of website as a collection of
documents/services provided from a single domain name, which is why I
would prefer for us to consistently use "web property", even though
it's a less common term.

The link Nemo provided is worth reading re: limitations of the comScore data:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stu/comScore_data_on_Wikimedia#Limitations

For internal analysis, internal data is much preferable, but for
communication where we're situated relative to the rest of the web,
comScore is, as Sue stated, the industry standard.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
MZMcBride, 11/04/2011 01:23:
> Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a
> difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or
> the tenth?

Yes. For instance, if you don't acknowledge that Facebook has now more
visits than Wikipedia you don't understand that the Internet has changed
in the last few years.
If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other
website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we
describe them.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

MZMcBride-2
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> MZMcBride, 11/04/2011 01:23:
>> Or better yet, focus on something that's actually meaningful. Does it make a
>> difference to anyone whether Wikipedia is the sixth most-visited website or
>> the tenth?
>
> Yes. For instance, if you don't acknowledge that Facebook has now more
> visits than Wikipedia you don't understand that the Internet has changed
> in the last few years.

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I wasn't saying that it literally matters to
no one what rank Wikimedia web properties have in comparison to other web
properties. I was saying that in the context that it's being used (in press
releases, job openings, etc.), it's not adding any actual value, it's just
puffery (and arguably inaccurate or misleading puffery, which is even
worse).

> If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other
> website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we
> describe them.

If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that
language later decreases. Wikimedia sites will likely be in the top ten for
quite some time. Whether they'll be fifth isn't nearly as assured. The
simplest and sanest solution seems to be to drop the needless precision.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Outdated manual

Federico Leva (Nemo)
MZMcBride, 12/04/2011 02:32:
>> If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other
>> website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we
>> describe them.
>
> If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that
> language later decreases.

Yes, and my point is that it would be a bad thing: it's better if you're
forced to consider it a problem (as it would be).

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l