Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don’t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:40:06 -0700 From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 849f98ed1001160140h20c69f6fxa5a7a22d4b81e...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sociolinguistic situations around the world are very complex I think. In especially former European colonies, of which Kenya is but one example, the language of the former colonial power often has a unique position in society. It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. Mark On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Dear Erik, Maybe there is a dirty Polish word looked up by many Polish pupils, and when they Google it they come to eu.WP because a Basque word accidentally is alike? :-) I am looking now for the interest in the native / the English Wikipedia in specific countries. It might be important how localized the software in general is. If you live in, say, Kenya, and your computer has Windows in English, the Internet Explorer and everything is oriented to English, and you google your home town in an English language Google, it is probable that you will get the Wikipedia article in English and not in Swahili. Kind regards Ziko ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Joan Goma hett schreven: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don’t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Interesting. What's the math behind that numbers? Or the source? Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). In the long term, it seems like we could compensate for all of these effects in software. I'm imagining a user experience where we make it easy for multilingual users to switch back and forth. That would include passive detection of multilingual users, hinting when good content is available in other languages, and making it easy for multilingual users to help translate content. It might also be worth looking at URL schemes that are not 100% language-specific, to focus the Google effect more usefully. That would require a lot of technical work, and would raise a number of non-technical issues, but I don't see any insurmountable barriers to a more fluid experience for multilingual users. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Details on how to measure it are relatively complex. We can make a guess because of data collected from sources available for Catalan. My mail was just to explain the phenomena. Figures results from: a) Surveys. Last one answered by 400 Catalan Wikipedia readers. We use results from answer to question about other language versions frequently used. [1] b) Most viewed pages in Spanish, French and English not yet existing in Catalan.[2] c) % of visitors to web pages exclusively in Catalan using web browser configured in other languages [3]. D) Own experiments with common searches in Google configuring the browser in Catalan, French, Spanish, and English, and some final cooking. Result is very approximate but gives us an idea about what is happening. The bilingual factor is not negative. It apparently reduces hits to Catalan pages but really it increases hits to non Catalan pages. The factor due to inexistent or not well developed articles has to be improved by growing the project. The more frustrating one is the Google Factor, You can Google “Integral” even with a Catalan configured navigator and you will get the English version first, then the Spanish one (witch is a translation from an old Catalan version) both in first page but not find the Catalan one witch is the larger of all before page 10. This article is a very special case due to specific factors. A technical solution would be great. And perhaps it is not of high difficulty. We could guess languages from IP address and highlight interwiki links to those languages. [1] http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Segon_sondeig_dels_usuaris/4._Utilitzeu_amb_freq%C3%BC%C3%A8ncia_alguna_altra_edici%C3%B3_de_la_Viquip%C3%A8dia%3F [2] http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari:Meldor/Top_visites_2009#Mes_visitats_a_can_.28castell.C3.A0.29_que_no_tenen_link_al_catal.C3.A0 [3] http://www.eines.cat/?p=804 From: Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org Joan Goma hett schreven: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). It comes from: 1.2 bilingual factor (visits lost because people also understand other languages, even if they have the opportunity to read the article in their mother tongue, they also read it in others). 2.5 size factor (visits to other projects because readers don?t find what they were looking for in their mother tongue). And 2,77 Google factor. (Visits lost because Google directs people to other tongues projects). The only positive factor is the bilingual one. We are working hard to correct the others. For other projects those factors can be very different but the concept can be there. Interesting. What's the math behind that numbers? Or the source? Marcus Buck Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:58:20 -0800 From: William Pietri will...@scissor.com On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote: There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that means that visits are 8.3 times less that what they should be). In the long term, it seems like we could compensate for all of these effects in software. I'm imagining a user experience where we make it easy for multilingual users to switch back and forth. That would include passive detection of multilingual users, hinting when good content is available in other languages, and making it easy for multilingual users to help translate content. It might also be worth looking at URL schemes that are not 100% language-specific, to focus the Google effect more usefully. That would require a lot of technical work, and would raise a number of non-technical issues, but I don't see any insurmountable barriers to a more fluid experience for multilingual users. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Дана Saturday 16 January 2010 12:25:58 Nikola Smolenski написа: Дана Saturday 16 January 2010 10:40:06 Mark Williamson написа: It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. Next thing to do: Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown Adjusted by Wikipedia Size. Erik, are you planning to do this one as well? :D Did it: http://smolenski.rs/blog/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-by-country-breakdown-with-wikipedia-size-and-quality/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Dear Erik, Maybe there is a dirty Polish word looked up by many Polish pupils, and when they Google it they come to eu.WP because a Basque word accidentally is alike? :-) I am looking now for the interest in the native / the English Wikipedia in specific countries. It might be important how localized the software in general is. If you live in, say, Kenya, and your computer has Windows in English, the Internet Explorer and everything is oriented to English, and you google your home town in an English language Google, it is probable that you will get the Wikipedia article in English and not in Swahili. Kind regards Ziko 2010/1/16 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com: I notice in that list both Belarusian Wikipedias are listed just as Belarusian Wikipedia. It would be very informative to know which is which and to have visitor statistics on both :-) skype: node.ue On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.comwrote: Here is a QA on all issues raised: Q=question/R=Remark, A=answer I put the more general questions on top. Cheers, Erik Zachte -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Is it first time these reports are published? A: Yes, expect trend report to grow by accretion over time. Other reports will be built from data for recent (6) months only -- R: Andrew Gray Andrew explains why distribution of page requests over countries favors Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries: 'Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use local uploads at all.' A: Thanks for explaining this unexpected distribution of page views on Commons, I had no idea. Spain 30.0% USA 29.2% Brazil 8.5% Argentina 4.8% Mexico 3.9% Germany 3.3% France 2.1% Venezuela 1.9% Chile 1.4% Costa Rica 1.4% Italy 1.4% Uruguay 1.2% Colombia 1.2% Portugal 1.1% -- R: Mark Williamson Two main factors influencing choice of Wikipedia language: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia. A: Like you say. Many Scandinavians (and Dutch people I might add) probably switch between English and local content all the time. Personally I tend to look at English Wp first I many instances, because of obviously richer content and larger depth. -- Q: Ziko van Dijk Why are 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) from Japan. Why are 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) from Poland? Q: Andre Engels I think bots are a likely explanation in the eu case (unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots) A: KSH used to be code for Kashmir. Still not Japan, but much closer than Cologne. Maybe Japanese mountaineers caused this spike ? (only half kidding) As for eu.wp: Would Polish presume there also is a European Wikipedia? Just a guess. I do filter bots -- R: Teun Spaans For trends, I would expect a bar indicating upward or downward trend, not a percentage bar. A: We can have both, a notion of importance and of change: I might color code cells as I do already in e.g. [1] This way large fluctuations really stand out. Let's first collect more history. [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Could we get this for other projects? A: This question is of course not unexpected. One consideration is we need a certain sample size to make numbers significant. For other projects, with far less traffic, few country/language pairs would be backed by sufficient data. See also below on extending the current reports with more table rows. -- Q: Nikola Smolenski: Please include at Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview [1] number of Internet users from [2], and number of views per Internet user? [1] http://tinyurl.com/yk43aq6 [2] http://tinyurl.com/yfv5bwn A: Done -- R: Nikola Smolenski It is obvious why Slovene Wikipedia is highly visited in Sierra Leone, and Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :) Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits. A: Very interesting observation! So people from Sierra Leone try 'sl.wikipedia.org'. Why people from Surinam go to 'sr.wikimedia.org' is only slightly less obvious to me, but apparently is happens For countries with just a few hits in the sampled log the distinction between visitors and visits gets blurred. -- R: Andre Engels Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead.
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Sociolinguistic situations around the world are very complex I think. In especially former European colonies, of which Kenya is but one example, the language of the former colonial power often has a unique position in society. It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. Mark On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Dear Erik, Maybe there is a dirty Polish word looked up by many Polish pupils, and when they Google it they come to eu.WP because a Basque word accidentally is alike? :-) I am looking now for the interest in the native / the English Wikipedia in specific countries. It might be important how localized the software in general is. If you live in, say, Kenya, and your computer has Windows in English, the Internet Explorer and everything is oriented to English, and you google your home town in an English language Google, it is probable that you will get the Wikipedia article in English and not in Swahili. Kind regards Ziko 2010/1/16 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com: I notice in that list both Belarusian Wikipedias are listed just as Belarusian Wikipedia. It would be very informative to know which is which and to have visitor statistics on both :-) skype: node.ue On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Here is a QA on all issues raised: Q=question/R=Remark, A=answer I put the more general questions on top. Cheers, Erik Zachte -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Is it first time these reports are published? A: Yes, expect trend report to grow by accretion over time. Other reports will be built from data for recent (6) months only -- R: Andrew Gray Andrew explains why distribution of page requests over countries favors Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries: 'Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use local uploads at all.' A: Thanks for explaining this unexpected distribution of page views on Commons, I had no idea. Spain 30.0% USA 29.2% Brazil 8.5% Argentina 4.8% Mexico 3.9% Germany 3.3% France 2.1% Venezuela 1.9% Chile 1.4% Costa Rica 1.4% Italy 1.4% Uruguay 1.2% Colombia1.2% Portugal1.1% -- R: Mark Williamson Two main factors influencing choice of Wikipedia language: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia. A: Like you say. Many Scandinavians (and Dutch people I might add) probably switch between English and local content all the time. Personally I tend to look at English Wp first I many instances, because of obviously richer content and larger depth. -- Q: Ziko van Dijk Why are 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) from Japan. Why are 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) from Poland? Q: Andre Engels I think bots are a likely explanation in the eu case (unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots) A: KSH used to be code for Kashmir. Still not Japan, but much closer than Cologne. Maybe Japanese mountaineers caused this spike ? (only half kidding) As for eu.wp: Would Polish presume there also is a European Wikipedia? Just a guess. I do filter bots -- R: Teun Spaans For trends, I would expect a bar indicating upward or downward trend, not a percentage bar. A: We can have both, a notion of importance and of change: I might color code cells as I do already in e.g. [1] This way large fluctuations really stand out. Let's first collect more history. [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Could we get this for other projects? A: This question is of course not unexpected. One consideration is we need a certain sample size to make numbers significant. For other projects, with far less traffic, few country/language pairs would be backed by sufficient data. See also below on extending the current reports with more table rows. -- Q: Nikola Smolenski: Please include at Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview [1] number of Internet users from [2], and number of views per Internet user? [1] http://tinyurl.com/yk43aq6 [2] http://tinyurl.com/yfv5bwn A: Done -- R: Nikola Smolenski It is obvious why Slovene Wikipedia is
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Дана Saturday 16 January 2010 10:40:06 Mark Williamson написа: It is not surprising to me that the English Wikipedia is so popular compared to any other in Kenya, but it is quite a bit more surprising that Korean, Romanian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Iranian, etc. users prefer the English Wikipedia. I don't think that they would prefer it, it's just that it covers much more topics, and generally covers the topics in much more depth. I believe that I am fairly fluent in English, and yet I prefer to read Serbian Wikipedia, if I know that the topic is covered there and the article is better than the English one. Next thing to do: Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown Adjusted by Wikipedia Size. Erik, are you planning to do this one as well? :D ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Q: Nikola Smolenski / Milos Rancic At Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown [1] and Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Trends [2] could you include more languages (ideally all languages)? Some of the numbers are going below 0.1% of population, but some of them are not mentioned even they are larger than 0.5% of population. [1] http://tinyurl.com/yhp3an7 [2] http://tinyurl.com/yzga2hm A: Yes on some reports I do include smaller percentages for the largest Wikipedia's as those represent significant numbers of page views. I used different (and arbitrary) thresholds per report. The arbitrariness could change, but I want to plead for a notoriety threshold: Here is a much more extended version of the breakdown report [1] (for this discussion only) It shows per country up to 50 Wikipedia's An extra column shows the total number of records for this country/language (for the 6 month period) on which the percentage is based. As you can see for the smallest countries that number is so low that it is no longer significant. Let us say we cut off not at 1%, but at an (arbitrary) absolute threshold of x logged records per country/language pair (per row). Let us say we cut off at average 5 records per month. Everything below that threshold in the test report is in dark red. Personally I think this is still way too much detail for a general report. Not because of Kb's but information overload. [1] http://tinyurl.com/yjwoyre Detailed statistics have two very important values: * The first one is chapter-related. I want to know more details about tendencies in Serbia, so I would be able: (1) to analyze what is going on and what WM RS did; (2) to make a media event based on statistics. * The other value is of general sociolinguistic value. I may trace up to some extent where do speakers of some language live, what is the percentage of internet adoption (actually, Wikipedia adoption); all of that in comparison with, let's say, GDP, number of inhabitants and so on. It would be great if you put some periodic job which would create such statistics at the end of every month. For example, I would really like to know about the trends in the past 6 months. I noticed in your quarterly report that share of Serbian language in Serbia is raising. It is very important because it shows one (or both) of two things: Serbian Wikipedia quality is raising or/and Internet adoption among those who don't know English well enough is raising. If number of visits to English Wikipedia is stable enough, it is about the second; if number of visits is lower than previous, it is about first; and so on. Also, I would like to know is it seasonal: which numbers are about tourists, and which are about general population behavior. So, while such statistics are truly an information overload for creation of a general report, they are very valuable for particular reports. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Дана Friday 15 January 2010 23:39:38 Erik Zachte написа: R: Nikola Smolenski It is obvious why Slovene Wikipedia is highly visited in Sierra Leone, and Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :) Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits. A: Very interesting observation! So people from Sierra Leone try 'sl.wikipedia.org'. Why people from Surinam go to 'sr.wikimedia.org' is only slightly less obvious to me, but apparently is happens ISO 3166-1 code for Surinam is 'sr'. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
I read all kind of confusions about funny correlations between language versions and countries where visitors are coming from. As I (privately) communicated with Erik, the following flaws are in the current analysis: * The country code AU is often used (by apnic in this case) as a placeholder for ranges that are pre-reserved. For instance to allocate parts of that very big range in bits and pieces to countries in the area (e.g. JP) * Similarly Ripe is doing that for the country code EU (not to be confused with the language code eu) Other misinterpretations may occur because there are some conflicts between country and language codes. An example of this is for instance SL (Sierra Leone) and sl (Slovenian) and I guess UA (Ukraine) and uk (Ukrainian?) is a similar case. But there are certainly more. See also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_codes/Conflicts, although imo this list is not comprehensive. Another cause of problems might be the fact that the assignments of IP ranges continuously change. That happens on a small scale (e.g. re-assigning a block of 65536 or much smaller), but also on a larger scale. The result is that you can't fully trust a so-called geo-IP database (like MaxMind). I don't know how quickly such a database is outdated, but have noticed major shifts of ranges of more than 16 million addresses within half a year (concerning the AU - JP confusion). Structured lists do not exist, so the only way is continuously checking the data in such a database via the Regional Internet Registries. That is a complicated, but also a very time-consuming process. So don't draw conclusions in the case of small countries and/or languages. Rgds Ronald ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
Дана Friday 15 January 2010 23:39:38 Erik Zachte написа: Here is a much more extended version of the breakdown report [1] (for this discussion only) It shows per country up to 50 Wikipedia's An extra column shows the total number of records for this country/language (for the 6 month period) on which the percentage is based. What exactly is this number of records? Thousands of visits? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Cheers, Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Erik, may you put somewhere full statistics? Some of the numbers are going below 0.1% of population, but some of them are not mentioned even they are larger than 0.5% of population. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
2010/1/15 Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com: Very interesting observation! So people from Sierra Leone try 'sl.wikipedia.org'. Why people from Surinam go to 'sr.wikimedia.org' is only slightly less obvious to me, but apparently is happens Well, Suriname’s TLD is .sr, so it is quite obvious, isn’t it? The same frequent mistake is also the reason there is a redirection cz.wikipedia.org → cs.wikipedia.org (Czech language is “cs” according to ISO 639-1, but Czech Republic’s TLD is “.cz” according to ISO 3166-1). -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from? QA
I notice in that list both Belarusian Wikipedias are listed just as Belarusian Wikipedia. It would be very informative to know which is which and to have visitor statistics on both :-) skype: node.ue On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.comwrote: Here is a QA on all issues raised: Q=question/R=Remark, A=answer I put the more general questions on top. Cheers, Erik Zachte -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Is it first time these reports are published? A: Yes, expect trend report to grow by accretion over time. Other reports will be built from data for recent (6) months only -- R: Andrew Gray Andrew explains why distribution of page requests over countries favors Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries: 'Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use local uploads at all.' A: Thanks for explaining this unexpected distribution of page views on Commons, I had no idea. Spain 30.0% USA 29.2% Brazil 8.5% Argentina 4.8% Mexico 3.9% Germany 3.3% France 2.1% Venezuela 1.9% Chile 1.4% Costa Rica 1.4% Italy 1.4% Uruguay 1.2% Colombia1.2% Portugal1.1% -- R: Mark Williamson Two main factors influencing choice of Wikipedia language: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia. A: Like you say. Many Scandinavians (and Dutch people I might add) probably switch between English and local content all the time. Personally I tend to look at English Wp first I many instances, because of obviously richer content and larger depth. -- Q: Ziko van Dijk Why are 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) from Japan. Why are 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) from Poland? Q: Andre Engels I think bots are a likely explanation in the eu case (unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots) A: KSH used to be code for Kashmir. Still not Japan, but much closer than Cologne. Maybe Japanese mountaineers caused this spike ? (only half kidding) As for eu.wp: Would Polish presume there also is a European Wikipedia? Just a guess. I do filter bots -- R: Teun Spaans For trends, I would expect a bar indicating upward or downward trend, not a percentage bar. A: We can have both, a notion of importance and of change: I might color code cells as I do already in e.g. [1] This way large fluctuations really stand out. Let's first collect more history. [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm -- Q: Nikola Smolenski Could we get this for other projects? A: This question is of course not unexpected. One consideration is we need a certain sample size to make numbers significant. For other projects, with far less traffic, few country/language pairs would be backed by sufficient data. See also below on extending the current reports with more table rows. -- Q: Nikola Smolenski: Please include at Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview [1] number of Internet users from [2], and number of views per Internet user? [1] http://tinyurl.com/yk43aq6 [2] http://tinyurl.com/yfv5bwn A: Done -- R: Nikola Smolenski It is obvious why Slovene Wikipedia is highly visited in Sierra Leone, and Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :) Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits. A: Very interesting observation! So people from Sierra Leone try 'sl.wikipedia.org'. Why people from Surinam go to 'sr.wikimedia.org' is only slightly less obvious to me, but apparently is happens For countries with just a few hits in the sampled log the distinction between visitors and visits gets blurred. -- R: Andre Engels Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. A: Yes but article growth in Ukrainian Wikipedia has been speeding up in recent months. [1] [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaUK.htm -- R: Andre Engels The Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. A: Interesting analysis. Let's see if this is a consistent trend. However the monthly page views per Wikipedia language for which we have 2 year history do not show very significant shift from large to smaller wikipedia's. See table 'Distribution of page views' at bottom of page of [1]: smaller languages gain in share of page views, but very slowly. [1]
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Excellent and extremely useful! A big thank you! :) A few questions: Could we get this for other projects? At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. At pages Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown and Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Trends, could you include more languages (ideally all languages)? Perhaps by making a separate page for every country? For example, I'd like to know data for all minority languages of Serbia. It would also be interesting to somehow show this data together with size of the Wikipedia and number of language speakers per country but I don't see how exactly (and I don't know how to find the number of language speakers). Perhaps I will do some of this manually, but just this time! :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Ethnologue has numbers for all languages although their information is often outdated or not 100% accurate, it is sufficient if you're doing a list with many languages. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Excellent and extremely useful! A big thank you! :) A few questions: Could we get this for other projects? At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. At pages Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Breakdown and Wikipedia Page Views By Country - Trends, could you include more languages (ideally all languages)? Perhaps by making a separate page for every country? For example, I'd like to know data for all minority languages of Serbia. It would also be interesting to somehow show this data together with size of the Wikipedia and number of language speakers per country but I don't see how exactly (and I don't know how to find the number of language speakers). Perhaps I will do some of this manually, but just this time! :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Except for Australia-Japanese, there is also this: Sierra Leone (0.0007% share of global total) Russian Wp 44.9% English Wp 43.7% Portal 8.4% Slovene Wp 1.1% Other 1.9% Why would Russian Wikipedia have so many visits from Sierra Leone? As a sidenote, there is also this: Suriname (0.003% share of global total) English Wp 62.5% Dutch Wp28.2% Portal 4.1% Serbian Wp 1.5% Afrikaans Wp1.4% Other 2.3% It is obvious why is Slovene Wikipedia highly visited in Sierra Leone, and Serbian in Suriname; URLs do matter :) (Although, I don't understand why so much. I would expect this distribution by visitors, perhaps, but not by visits.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing 11.1%) Ukraine: Ukrainian 56.6% UNDER RUSSIAN (swing 4.4%) Romania: Romanian 21.7% UNDER English (swing 12.6%) - vernaculars 18.5% UNDER English (swing 13.4%) Thailand: Thai 18.9% over English (swing -3.5%) Denmark: Danish 12.3% UNDER English (swing 10.7%) Hungary: Hungarian 23.8% over English (swing 6.1%) Uruguay: Spanish 72.4% over English (swing 1.1%) Vietnam: Vietnamese 31.0% over English (swing 8.8%) Greece: Greek 42.1% UNDER English (swing 9.0%) Bulgaria: Bulgarian 1.4% over English (swing 8.9%) United Arab Emirates: Arabic 66.8% UNDER English (swing 5.4%) Egypt: Arabic 18.5% UNDER English (swing 11.3%) Lithuania: Lithuanian 9.3% UNDER English (swing -6.4%) - vernaculars 9.3% under English (swing -6.6%) Iran: Persian 0.6% UNDER English (swing 0.5%) -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. I guess there are also a lot of cases similar to the Australia/Japanese one of IPs wrongly attributed to one country. For example, I remember that at least a few years ago (I'm not sure now) a lot of Italian customers of Tele2 had an IP that was Swedish. Maybe this is not a big effect given that the Sweden/Swedish relationship does not differ that much from the other Scandinavian countries. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
H what saddens me is that such a low percentage use the Thai wikipedia in Thailand instead of the English one. Having lived in Thailand for over 10 years now my estimation is that only 10% of the populous would speak English good enough to be able to read English wikipedia articles at least partially. And this is the part of the population with the best education. This would mean that unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't reach the part of the population it is meant for. The part whom have less access to education. Waerth/Walter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
I think there are two main factors influencing this: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. In a country like Japan, basic English is widespread but real reading comprehension on the level necessary for reading WP articles is not (as far as I know at least). Scandinavians, on the other hand, fall at the other end of the spectrum - according to Wikipedia, 89% of Swedes have a working knowledge of English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia - if I can speak some English, would it be worth it to me to look for articles in English instead of my native language due to greater quality or completeness of the English Wikipedia? If I'm German, I have much less motivation to read articles in English than if my native language is Burmese. Of course, this is in purely relative terms - people in Arab countries preferring English to Arabic for Wikipedia does not mean that the Arabic Wikipedia is of poor quality, it just means that users feel that the English Wikipedia is a more reliable or complete resource in some way. Mark On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing 11.1%) Ukraine: Ukrainian 56.6% UNDER RUSSIAN (swing 4.4%) Romania: Romanian 21.7% UNDER English (swing 12.6%) - vernaculars 18.5% UNDER English (swing 13.4%) Thailand: Thai 18.9% over English (swing -3.5%) Denmark: Danish 12.3% UNDER English (swing 10.7%) Hungary: Hungarian 23.8% over English (swing 6.1%) Uruguay: Spanish 72.4% over English (swing
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Hello, Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Kind regards Ziko 2010/1/14 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com I think there are two main factors influencing this: # Fluency of the Internet-using population of a country in English. In a country like Japan, basic English is widespread but real reading comprehension on the level necessary for reading WP articles is not (as far as I know at least). Scandinavians, on the other hand, fall at the other end of the spectrum - according to Wikipedia, 89% of Swedes have a working knowledge of English. # Quality of the native Wikipedia - if I can speak some English, would it be worth it to me to look for articles in English instead of my native language due to greater quality or completeness of the English Wikipedia? If I'm German, I have much less motivation to read articles in English than if my native language is Burmese. Of course, this is in purely relative terms - people in Arab countries preferring English to Arabic for Wikipedia does not mean that the Arabic Wikipedia is of poor quality, it just means that users feel that the English Wikipedia is a more reliable or complete resource in some way. Mark On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? To quantify this, I have taken the 50 largest countries, excluding languages where English is the main language (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India, Philippines, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa). For all countries I have compared the percentage going to the main language Wikipedia and those going to the English Wikipedia (in the Ukrainian case: the Russian Wikipedia), and also the 'swing' (in the way the term is used in UK politics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_%28United_Kingdom%29) from English to the local language (or in the reverse direction, if it is negative). For countries such as Spain and Belgium which have more than one local language, the similar data with all local languages are also given. Japan: Japanese 92.2% over English (swing -0.4%) Germany: German 72.2% over English (swing 1.5%) France: French 67.5% over English (swing 4.1%) Poland: Polish 71.5% over English (swing 4.0%) Italy: Italian 71.5% over English (swing 4.7%) Mexico: Spanish 71.5% over English (swing 3.4%) Brazil: Portuguese 67.7% over English (swing 1.1%) Spain: Spanish 60.3% over English (swing 7.0%) - vernaculars 64.4% over English (swing 8.6%) Netherlands: Dutch 10.4% over English (swing 6.6%) Russia: Russian 70.2% over English (swing 4.9%) Sweden: Swedish 13.8% over English (swing 8.1%) Switzerland: German 36.6% over English (swing 2.1%) - vernaculars 55.0% over English (swing 2.7%) Austria: German 65.1% over English (swing -1.1%) Finland: Finnish 24.7% over English (swing 2.2%) - vernaculars 26.8% over English (swing 2.8%) China: Chinese 4.8% over English (swing -7.3%) Turkey: Turkish 48.7% over English (swing 11.7%) Belgium: Dutch 9.5% over English (swing 9.2%) - vernaculars 40.1% over English (swing 9.6%) Argentina: Spanish 66.2% over English (swing 1.2%) Norway: Norwegian (Bokmal) 0.9% UNDER English (swing 14.4%) - vernaculars 0.1% over English (swing 14.5%) Colombia: Spanish 56.3% over English (swing -3.8%) Czech Republic: Czech 44.3% over English (swing 10.2%) Hong Kong: Chinese equal to English (swing 1.0%) - vernaculars 1.4% over English (swing 1.2%) Taiwan: Chinese 45.5% over English (swing 3.7%) - vernaculars 45.7% over English (swing 3.7%) Chile: Spanish 60.6% over English (swing -2.0%) Israel: Hebrew 10.9% over English (swing 3.9%) - vernaculars 12.8% over English (swing 3.9%) Indonesia: Indonesian 10.2% over English (swing 8.5%) - vernaculars 11.3% over English (swing 8.4%) Portugal: Portuguese 11.9% over English (swing 2.2%) South Korea: Korean 2.7% over English (swing 12.8%) Malaysia: Malay 74.5% UNDER English (swing -1.0%) Peru: Spanish 74.5% over English (swing 2.1%) Venezuela: Spanish 77.5% over English (swing
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Ziko van Dijk wrote: Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Bots? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote: Thank you for the numbers, Erik! I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? Bots? I think that's a likely explanation in the eu case (unless Erik is using an algorithm that filters out bots) - I see Poles come up high in more unexpected small languages (Telugu, Welsh, Alemannic, Frisian, Cebuan, Norman, Crimean Tartar) - although Basque seems to be the biggest of the lot. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Erik Zachte wrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? And, (sorry) one more question: is the first time that such reports are being released? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Andre Engels wrote: Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukrainian is not a small language by any means, yet Wikipedia visitors tend to be drawn to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Also, the Q3-Q4 comparison for most countries shows a shift from English to the 'vernacular'. Do you have data on this from a longer period of time? That is, is this part of an ongoing shift, or is it a seasonal effect (perhaps having to do with Q3 containing the school holidays in most countries? In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which are read from foreign countries more than from the country of origin (probably b/c readers from diaspora is richer and has better Internet access). For example, Macedonian Wikipedia is read more from Slovenia or Germany than from Macedonia: Macedonian (mk) (0.02% share of global total) Slovenia30.6% Germany 23.7% Macedonia 23.3% It would therefore make sense for WMDE to try to reach Macedonians living in Germany, and for future WMMK to help them in doing so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Nikola Smolenski wrote: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which Also, any ideas why is Commons so popular in Spain and Latin America? Commons (commons) (0.010% share of global total) Spain 30.0% United States 29.2% Brazil 8.5% Argentina 4.8% Mexico 3.9% ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
2010/1/14 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs: Nikola Smolenski wrote: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which Also, any ideas why is Commons so popular in Spain and Latin America? Some Wikipedias - the ones which insist on only-free-images - do not use local uploads at all, and instead direct everyone to Commons. Both es.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia work this way, so they'll send a lot more of their users to Commons than a project which uses local image uploads. As a result, I suspect you'll find that traffic to Commons increases proportionately with traffic to Spanish/Portuguese Wikipedia usage. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Nikola Smolenski hett schreven: In Page Views Per Wikipedia Language - Breakdown I also notice something that should affect chapter relations: there are some Wikipedias which are read from foreign countries more than from the country of origin (probably b/c readers from diaspora is richer and has better Internet access). For example, Macedonian Wikipedia is read more from Slovenia or Germany than from Macedonia: Macedonian (mk) (0.02% share of global total) Slovenia 30.6% Germany 23.7% Macedonia 23.3% It would therefore make sense for WMDE to try to reach Macedonians living in Germany, and for future WMMK to help them in doing so. It would make sense. But at the moment WMDE is not even actively doing anything for the _native_ languages of Germany except for German. I think that would be the first step to do. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: It would make sense. But at the moment WMDE is not even actively doing anything for the _native_ languages of Germany except for German. I think that would be the first step to do. I had a quick look at the native languages of Italy, and I found out that the percentage of visits from Italy is much smaller for the regional languages: Italian: 90.4% Neapolitan: 45.8% Tarantino: 43.2% Emiliano-Romagnolo: 34.5% Venetian: 33.9% Lombard: 29.5% Sicilian: 27.6% Sardinian: 26.4% Piedmontese: 24.8% Friulian: 17.8% Ligurian: 17.6% I see a couple of reasons for this difference: 1) Bot visits count proportionally much more in smaller wikis 2) We know that, at least in some of these projects, a lot of contributors are migrants (even 2nd or 3rd generation) that try to maintain the regional languages their parents/grandparents used (Italy had a lot of emigration in the 20th century), so it shouldn't be hard to imagine that the same happens for the readers. This also partly explains why Wikimedia Italia has little penetration within this projects. It would be interesting to see if the same happens for other countries, for example Germany Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Дана Thursday 14 January 2010 09:24:16 Nikola Smolenski написа: At Wikipedia Page Views Per Country - Overview, could you in future include number of Internet users (f.e. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users ) and number of views per Internet user? IMO, this is more useful than population and could identify countries where Wikipedia should be advertised. Did it: http://smolenski.rs/blog/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-per-country-with-internet-users/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Cheers, Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?
Hi Erik, thank you. Very nice. One suggestion: for trends, i would expect a bar indicating upward or downward trend, not a percentage bar. live long and prosper teun On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte erikzac...@infodisiac.comwrote: Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: Where do our readers come from? http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Cheers, Erik Zachte ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
