Summary: A news-heavy week offers some insight, perhaps, into humanity's priorities: Barack Obama's contemplating entering the Syrian Civil War and the anniversary of the March on Washington share space with Miley Cyrus's public pushing of her posterior and Robin Thicke's apparent extramarital groping, with the highest interest directed towards the offending bottom.
For a list of the top 25 articles of the week, plus exclusions, see: WP:TOP25
For the week of August 25–31, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
Apparently, girls waggling their bottoms onstage now has a word. Or at least one fit for the Oxford Dictionary Online. And a Wikipedia article. You'd think we'd have had one a while ago, given what a common phenomenon it is, but I suppose words are as they are needed, and boy, Miley, did you make this one needed.
The last time the Blue-eyed soul singer and son of Alan Thicke was on this list, it was because he'd just released his latest album; now he's back, with triple the views, both for his role in Miley's routine, and for his hand straying too far over the anatomy of a pretty clubgoer.
The former teenybopper graduated into adulthood in the manner customary to her profession: doing something in public to offend. The heightened publicity has secured her career for the immediate future at least.
The 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's rhetorical masterpiece at the March on Washington on August 28 stimulated much public discussion about its legacy and effects.
Meaningless. Given that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a time lag, serious readers would be turning directly to the secondary sources for reliable up to date information, not Wikipedia, on items like the Syria situation. NE Ent02:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that, because some people use other information sources, the fact that people use this information source doesn't matter? Serendipodous03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, NE Ent, the programs that count page views can not distinguish "serious readers" from people who mistype Syriana. All this chart (and others like it) are measuring are page views, no program can determine a reader's intent or even if they read the article once they land on it. The chart still conveys information on what people are seeking information about online and I think it's not only useful but interesting. LizRead!Talk!13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It conveys information on what people are seeking about on Wikipedia. The fact that folks rely on Wikipedia for pop culture crap and don't rely on it for breaking news is actually a good thing; thus snarky innuendo about "No accounting for the wisdom of crowds" and "some insight, perhaps, into humanity's priorities:" are not justified, and are actually an indication that some wiki folks probably need to get out more. NE Ent16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent, I disagree with your comment about "serious readers." If a reader knows nothing about a given situation, does it make more sense for them to read first from an encyclopedia or from a journalistic source? The answer is an encyclopedia, because the journalistic source does not necessarily provide sufficient background for our uniformed reader; hence why readers check out Wikipedia before they go to Foreign Affairs. Wikipedia is also free and more easily navigated. Furthermore, Wikipedia cites a significant amount of primary sources as well as recently-published secondary sources. I think you not only falsely assume our geopolitical content is based on months-old scholarly articles but also underestimate the size of our audience that doesn't care about pop culture. The Traffic report has proven this time and again to be the case. The woeful public appetite for titillation and gossip is worrisome, but is endemic to humanity. Chris Troutman (talk)03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might have noticed this particular article is not in the encyclopedia namespace. The Signpost is a work of journalism and thus editorial opinions are justified. PowersT17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, excuse me, I list every article on the page; I simply move the ones I can't find a rationale for to the bottom. If people don't want to read the bottom section, then that's their problem (and mine, since one of the reasons I posted this in the first place was to locate new sources of views). Serendipodous18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting what you (Serendipodous) are saying? Where did the content "in the manner customary to her profession: doing something in public to offend. " come from? NE Ent18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. I'll try and be a bit more judicious when I repost the list onto the Signpost next time. Now unless you want to charge me with libel, can we put this to rest? Serendipodous19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find Serendipodous's work to be both insightful and entertaining reading. What NE Ent called "meaningless" in the first comment is actually quite meaningful -- the internet's users spend much more attention on inane subjects than troubling crises that don't directly affect them. Yes, many many more people know more about Miley twerking than anything about Syria. That may upset folks, but I would suggest that this has probably always been the case, ever since the rise of literate mass populations. You find it throughout 19th century American history, for example, the most popular books and newspapers as the century progressed were often low-brow.--Milowent • hasspoken20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Digg
+ Add a comment
Discuss this story