So my 2p: The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of each topic.
I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly natural. But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things (half of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for. Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue our mission is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots at him. Chris (The Land) On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer" <tba...@wikimedia.org> wrote: On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with the > second sentence: > > > *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites > increased by 170 million <http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/>.* > This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the > same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about > a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So it > reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the > stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my > knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads > of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those > would actually be rather impressive. > > I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from December 2015 <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_ Product&oldid=2399861#Reading_Audience>). Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis on_(since_May_2013).png ). BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact the last numbers date from August 2016. Here is a current pageviews dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics. wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views). For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view . -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
