Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-05-27/Recent research

Popular articles[edit]

On "why the data was limited only to few months in 2009", the reason is surely very simple: until bug 42259 is fixed, querying pageviews data is nearly impossible, so they had to use a small sample and they ended up using the same they already had (in usable form) from previous research. As for the other questions on classification, they are IMHO important to a point; a deeper possible flaw is that the popular articles of en.wiki will usually not exist at all on other Wikipedias, which don't create them or even delete them: of course, if an article doesn't exist it can't take a big proportion of your pageviews but this tells nothing on how popular the topic is. From the review I don't understand if this was considered by the paper. --Nemo 07:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall seeing this point raised. Different notability criteria on different Wikipedias are indeed a valid point to consider, good thought. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikinews[edit]

Rejected "due to a lack of 'newsworthiness' "? Heavens, that's a bit rich coming from a site that puts up on its main page the über-trivial alongside stories of world significance. Who cares that some regional football club in some Australian town beat another regional football club last Saturday? How could anything be rejected if that makes the front page? Tony (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "newsworthiness" is a combination of what we'd call "notability" and timeliness; so an article on a significant topic written a week late would still be "unnewsworthy". Andrew Gray (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]