Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-11/Traffic report


 * Saying, "the English language Wikipedia is very often the American Wikipedia" is misleading here. Although it is not (I think) what is meant) this wording could be interpreted by some Signpost readers to mean that there's an American bias in the encyclopedia article's text. Logically speaking the neutrality of the encyclopedia need not be connected in any way to the traffic report, even if the report shows high traffic among articles with particular national interests. (Easy to see if you consider a 100% perfectly neutral encyclopedia would still show national trends in the article traffic so long as some countries have different numbers of people online.) Our editors are doing a decent job at staying neutral nationally in their writing. There *is* American bias in the encyclopedia (in topics, in depth of coverage, and even in language and interpretation) but I cannot get worked up over the first two and consider them non-issues. That kind of bias will always be proportional to the national ratios of our readership so long as we keep the encyclopedia open. (People write and read about what interests them.) The latter two are of much more concern and overall we do a decent if imperfect job at staying neutral with them so I really wouldn't want anybody to falsely believe we outright fail there. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the original text was misleading, it is an opinion, but not an unknown or radical one. He could have gone as far to say its the American Male wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You do notice that says "as far as viewers are concerned," right? He's not talking about the editors or coverage, just what gets the most views! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not too "American" if we use "quaterback" as a noun. . Collect (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how did it take ten days for the Super Bowl article to be updated to reflect that this year's was the most-watched in TV history? I meant to do it myself and got really busy, finally remembering it when I saw this. And since I don't know where they got those really large numbers for List of most watched television broadcasts in the United States, someone needs to go fix that one too. I have it formatted but don't know what number to put there.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to see this regularly, please support my bot request to automate its production. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is this week's top-20 by edits and editors. This week different IP address editors are counted as different editors instead of the same one.
 * Yes, this is the American Wikipedia. The Hindi-language WIkipedia is an Indian Wikipedia. The Hebrew-language Wikipedia is an Israeli Wikipedia. If you're not a white male American, take pride in bringing something unique to Wikipedia; we need you, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not only a question of adding more (less popular) content. It is also a question of having to fight much harder to keep this content, at least from my anecdotal observation. But don’t take my word for it, check these 2014 Signpost comments from those who try to save content daily. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Then of course there is also the matter of how the subjects are portrayed. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)