Wikipedia talk:Statistics/Archive 2

Special:Statistics has historically had about 1 in every somewhat less than 1000 logged-in users administrators. Now, however, it is 1 in more than 1000. I think we should add a new figure, which is the number of logged-in users who are not indefinitely blocked. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So, how are the squids doing? --James S. 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody promoted the "Manually updated statistics" above the "Periodically updated statistics", then moved "Search engine statistics" from one category to the other. First of all, if you know what these pages are and note the descriptions given, the recategorization was simply wrong, because the groups are of different types. As to placement on the page, while recognizing that people like to follow Alexa stuff, I think the breadth and depth of Wikipedia statistics in the other section deserves the higher placement. There are lots of places you can get data comparing Wikipedia against the rest of the internet, and the statistics here are just occasional glimpses at things that other sites do better. On the other hand, this is the best place to go for in-depth statistics specifically about Wikipedia (Erik Zachte's in particular) and I think that's what we should be featuring. --Michael Snow 18:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to offer any examples of "places you can get data comparing Wikipedia against the rest of the internet"? I'm inclined to doubt that any good ones exist. At the moment all but one of the stats in the top section are at least 8 weeks old, which looks pretty useless in my opinion. 62.31.55.223 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexa to start with; getting data from the horse's mouth seems preferable to me as opposed to looking at a secondhand compilation. Beyond that, data get released to the media periodically by companies like comScore, Hitwise, and Nielsen//NetRatings (or whatever they're called now). Whereas for detailed numbers about Wikipedia itself, there aren't really outside sources, and a compilation like Erik Zachte's is as good as you'll find anywhere from anybody. Also, seeing as how you undid my change, you still don't seem to have understood why "Search engine statistics" doesn't fit in the category you moved it to. --Michael Snow 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The pages here are vastly better than raw Alexa info as they contain a great deal of well organised information covering a long period of time. The pages contain scores of links to Alexa comparison graphs which are not immediately available direct from Alexa (and how would you know what to compare?). Really your comments are a hurtful insult to all of the effort that has been expended. Your other examples are feeble as you admit the information is merely "released periodically". Those sources are also almost entirely U.S. centric, and therefore grossly misleading to the point of being worse than useless as sources about Wikipedia on a worldwide basis. 62.31.55.223 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Really now, I don't see why it's such a hurtful insult to suggest that we should prioritize statistics generated by Wikipedians about Wikipedia over collections of statistics copied from outside sources and still available from those same sources. I would think it was much more insulting to describe all the work people have done to produce internal statistics as "pretty useless" simply because the updates depend on having a new database dump available to run their scripts on. --Michael Snow 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing insulting in Michael's remarks. His arguments are certainly valid and his opinion worthwhile considering. Nevertheless I would also prefer the version with the frequently updated statistics on top and the less frequently further down. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The "second-hand" compilation offers far more than the Alexa site becuase it is updated most days with information that is only briefly available on Alexa and is organised especially for people who are interested in Wikipedia. It is hard to believe you have even looked at it and your remarks continue to be unrepentantly hurtful and insulting. Why is information produced by Wikipedians by processing internally generated data so superior to information produced by Wikipedians from reputable external data? You position makes no sense to me at all. And the data you value so much hasn't been updated since this discussion started. 62.31.55.223

Why is the number of edits that the Special:Statistics page keeps track of larger than the numbers of the edits kept track of in the page histories?? Georgia guy 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it counts deleted edits and various adminsitrative actions as "edits" - it is a non-decreasing function of time. – ABCD^e✉ 06:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Now the number of registered users is ahead of the number of articles. Georgia guy 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel this is bad news? I'd take it as neutral at worst; I doubt we would want one billion articles if there were one billion registered users. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Turn it around the other way - in theory (sockpuppets excepted), on average one person in 6000 on the entire planet is a Wikipedian. Surely that's something to celebrate? Grutness...wha? 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a "very bad news". There are over seven million registered user accounts and this number will keep on increasing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As of 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC), we are at 999,720. Looks like it'll be either today or tomorrow! --TKE

I couldn't find many statistics related to the number of stubs on Wikipedia, so I tallied a few myself. See User:Dantheox/Stub percentages. Includes a chart of article count over time with overall stub count superimposed. Also includes a chart of the percentage of articles that are stubs over time. Enjoy, --Dantheox 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge page that provides manually maintained statistics on stub types — Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Granted, there are not aggregate statistics on this page. Also, there are varying definitions of "stub", a major split being between a "structural" definition based on page length (which is implementable via personal preferences) and a "functional" definition based on being labeled a stub; both the the page I mention here and that mentioned above by Dantheox are based on a "functional" definition. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. It would be useful if we had a method for automatically generating statistics that could be used in this page; the counts are binned so as to give a coarse and comparable view of stub counts, to make data collection easier for humans and to provide less distraction to persons viewing the page (less distraction to see several instances of "<200" than "198", "175", and "188"). Automated methods could provide a binned number and an exact number with several potential options for viewing (binned number presented with mouseover for exact; separate pages for binned and exact numbers; preferences level selection of view based on some javascript; etc.) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Than can be done...Contact me on my user page. User:Gnome (Bot) is more than capable of doing this. The code will only take 2 or 3 hours to write, as soon as I know what cretiria to use.(As in how and where to put the number)!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

sounds like an interesting idea. BTW, just to expand slightly on what Ceyockey said, it's not so much that the binned numbers are less distracting - there are two reasons for them: logistical and functional:

• logistical - since the counts are done by hand, exact numbers would become outdated very rapidly whereas bins will probably be accurate for much longer;
• functional - the main reason for these counts is to give WP:WSS an idea of which categories are too big (and needing splitting) or too small (and needing deletion/merging). All that's really needed for that are bins to give a rough idea of size - exact figures aren't needed for that task. That's also the reason why the bins go from actual stub numbers to bolded category page numbers above 800 stubs - it makes it far easier to spot the really big categories.

For those reasons, I'd actually argue that exact figures aren't useful on that page, and would actually distract slightly from what's being done. it would be good to be able to automatically update the bin sizes with a bot, but to bins, not to exact figures. Mind you, a note at the top of the page saying exactly how many articles are marked as stubs in total (similar to the article count on the main page) would be useful! Grutness...wha? 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The bins are different sizes, but it is only a matter of changing a couple if then statements. I agree with the bins, also the tolal count sounds great to me. Will you support a trial run of the bot on WT:BOTEagle (talk) (desk) 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC) PS-unless a bot flag is not needed...the policy really confuses me. My program would make only one edit per time I run it. (every week, what ever)

Thanks for the support!!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I really can't do this unless I get consensous to change the formatting of the project page.(something consistant that I can regex for)

The actual articles are not the problem, Its keeping the data togather.

1. first there is the category link itself, this is no problem as they automatically have a definate beginning and end point, that code can find with no problem.

1. next there is the description of the category...right now there is no definate begginning and end point to these. (there may be more than one sentence) unless the description is the only thing in ()'s I find it very hard to keep these with the category. Are these even nessacary to the project???, I will waste time coding to find these, but if I don't I will like this project even more!!! (another page can hold the descriptions, or we can make sure that there is a specific start symobol say ( and a specific end symbol say ). These MUST' occur only once per countable category.

I'm all ears to your suggestions?? I may be overlooking something simple. If I am feel free to tell me I'm an idiot:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. lastly there is the number of articles (bin). This is absolutly no problem, as I will write over this each time.

All the above is from Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have code that will automaticlly get the categoryes and count them, right now. The problem is getting all the other stuff on the page.

Please help me give suggestions, but remember that each section must end with a unique symbol, such as $%^&*()+[]{}, ect. else the code can't find all of the pieces, As a result it will ruin the page, and we will have to revert. (That will be a waste of my time, so lets get this right the first time!!!

Here is a proposed page syntax, there can be more than one *, if the indent needs to go further.

• [[:Category:<name> stubs]] {{<Link to stub template>}} (<Comment on what the stub category is for, ect. This is the description I am having problems with>) <Binned article count>

No special symbols are needed for the article count, as this is added by my code, (I don't have to find this on the page)

When the article count exeeds 800, it will change to <Binned article count>. NOTE right now, the program uses all numbers.

Bin values are: 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600, 2800, 3000, "CATEGORY IS WAY TO BIG".

Suggestions on these are welcome, but if you want me to count by number of pages, please give me a VERY good argument for that instead of the numbers. Remember if it is too large the number will be in bold. (also I can do this if it is too small)

Personally I prefer the numbers, and as I am the one who is doing the programming, I will go with my preference unless a strong reason is given otherwise.

• I Will keep a database on my computer to keep trak of trends, useing the real numbers. (That way if a category is just not getting poupulated, or there is a specific question I will be able to answear it. (The database will be public on a page somewhere, but that is for another day.

All the above is my edits. People, please give imput, I really need it to feel confident about what I am doingEagle (talk) (desk) 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you just ignore the stuff other than the category name and number of articles? For now, the number of articles is always (atleast in theory): one of three forms

• <\d+
• '''\d+\s*pages'''
• ''new''

You could just match and replace those, and leave the rest as is...Mairi 04:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, what happens when the theory is not reality?? Result, messed up page.Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this - the only stuff on each line of the page is the category, the template, one of four codes if there are associated wikiprojects, redirects or child categories (always one letter followed by "*", and the count. What is this "Comment on what the stub category is for" business? (oh, and no problem with using article numbers rather thanpage numbers, as long as the larger ones are bolded). Grutness...wha? 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The category [[]] The template {{}}, Ok I'll have to add template to the code. (that will be more work).Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, forget the commments, I was looking at the wrong page!!!Oops.

Only one problem, My regex statements are not correct yet for one of the values. but other than that everything works. Will begin the automated counts on saterday, unless someone objects(the bot will do only one edit)Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the resource-efficiency of this; isn't this going to require many thousands of page-loads if you're doing this via the wiki, on the live database? Note that Conscious is also working on this (see his recent update), via a script from off-line stats; it'd be good to co-ordinate the effort on this, at least. I'm also somewhat reluctant to impose too great a burden on people updating the page to ensure it's "machine-readable", which isn't its primary purpose. Alai 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Its already fixed up. The regex statements are quite broad, I had to do a little formatting, but it was very minor. The bot can read everything on the page.

Though I will say one thing, the bot was designed to relive some of the burden on the project.(sure I will have to make sure that the bot can read new entries, but I will do that now) In addition now manual counting is a thing of the past.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted with the thing on the database.(I am limiting the bot to loading a page every 25 seconds.) Plus i will now only run the bot on saterday, times of little server load.(the bot will make only one edit, that is at the end)

It's no harm to put the page in a consistent format, no problems there. But the trouble is, it has to be updated manually when types are added, renamed, moved around the hierarchy, etc; if we end up telling people "keep it in exactly this format, otherwise the bot won't like it!", they'll get annoyed, be less likely to update it at all, etc. Mind you, if you can automate that part too... Alai 05:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alai, please realize that I have spent over 8 hours now programming this thing. Let me get it working correctly first. Yes I can make the page format be an automated proccess, but one thing at a time,please. Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the analysis of wikipedia growth page tends to get outdated easily, I have mad a ruby/gnuplot script that automatically makes a graph of the growth and fits a few models to it. However: This needs a file of article creation dates to run, and I don't have a regular supply of those. Perhaps somone here who can easily create such dumps would be interested in making such dumps and analysing them with the script on a regular basis? The whole process should be easily automated. The script and an example of what it produces can be found at the bottom of my user page. Amaurea 09:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to get from here to a page which shows the sizes of wikipedia in all its languages, rather than just English. Can someone put in a link please? --MacRusgail 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• See the first two links under "Periodically updated statistics". 62.31.55.223 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know where the community pages are to discuss things like this so... on the special statistics page special statistics page the first link ("Detailed tables and charts of Wikipedia statistics") is either broken or just not working now. If there is a better place I could have put this please reply on my talk page. TXAggie 03:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Realtime statistics showing daily, monthly, and yearly global traffic across all Wikimedia projects" haven't worked for me the last several times I have tried to look at them. Are they working for other people? CalJW 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the graphs at noc.wikimedia.org, I don't think these are available anymore, as far as I know. However, I recently came across a link to very similar statistics at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Falling off the edge of a cliff in Alexa. See http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/reqstats/ I will try to update the project page accordingly.--GregRM 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the folloking graph:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22Wikipedia%22&ctab=0&date=all&geo=all

Far too good information not to use... But where and how?

preceding added by 132.231.54.1

• Two places might be considered: Wikipedia:Awareness statistics and/or Wikipedia:Search engine statistics. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• By the way ... 'one million articles' is mentioned twice two years apart on the plot (points A and E) - could someone explain that? Thanks. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Total and English? LossIsNotMore 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have long given up to lobby for a switch from "article" to "word" count as the main gauge of WP's growth. However, the main statistics page if at all possible should list the number of words (some 400M now?) along with the "article number". Comparing "numbers of articles" has become far too widespread and is often used irresponsibly. dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to Erik Zachte's Wikipedia Statistics Sitemap isn't working for me. Any comments? 62.31.55.223 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the problem has been going on the whole time, but it isn't working for me, either—almost two months after you pointed it out. I'm getting a 403 (Forbidden) on every page, although I seem to remember it working once in the past week or so. Chances are that was my imagination

In the meantime, it's on the Google cache (retrieved on October 5, interestingly). I'm going to make a note about this in the article. — supreme_geek_overlord 02:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I compiled some statistics: how many articles from non-English Wikipedias are translated into English, and how many notable topics from specialized databases are covered on Wiki so far. My conclusions: there are about 2 millions articles in need of translation, and more then 400 million of specialized topics in need of creation :) See User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test for details.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone who has access to watchlist data please compile a list of the top-5000-or-so most watched articles? I know the least watched need to be kept secret to defend against vandalism, but the most watched will be profoundly interesting and will help answer some pressing questions. This has been asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Most watched articles without results. LossIsNotMore 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this also. Does this information exist? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Job_queue. --kingboyk 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are ever more frequently showing up in Google's top 10 search results. I'd like to see some stats on Wikipedia articles' search engine rankings when a search for the article's title is executed. For example, if you google for world war i, Wikipedia's World War I shows up second, while a google for music put's the Music article at #14.

I'd like to see a count or even a list of the Wikipedia articles whose corresponding Google search lists the article in the #1 position, #2, #3, etc. Something like this:

1. 9.7% (1,330,093) of articles are the #1 search result on a Google query for the article's title.
2. 13.6% (1,619,002)
3. 7.3% (930,177)
4. 2.1% (301,990)
5. 1.3%
6. etc
7. etc
8. etc
9. etc
10. etc

• 43.8% of articles are not return in the top 10 search results.

This shouldn't be to hard to do; just a database dump and a little Google API magic. Any thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This link: Charts and Graphs is no longer accesible, however there is a link to it in special page Statistics.--tequendamia 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are these stats forbidden (on all Wikimedia projects)? Anybody? --195.210.251.91 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again. Why are statistics unavailable?! --213.250.11.131 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to meta:Wikimedia_site_feedback#Where_are_the_STATS.3F, the page accidentally contained confidential information and therefore, it was disabled. The problem is only temporary. Tra (Talk) 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A change of policy I guess. THey became confidential.--tequendamia 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what it is is that not all of the Wikimedia wikis are open to public viewing. The Internal wiki only allows unregistered users to see the main page, because it contains confidential information (this has always been like this). The statistics information accidentally contained confidential information about this wiki so it had to be disabled. I presume when the problem has been fixed, the page can be enabled again. Tra (Talk) 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this ever coming back or what..? --Winterus 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering something that doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. Where are the 60-odd thousand article authors located? Are they mostly in English speaking countries? Where are Spanish or Portuguese language article authors located? Spain/Portugal, Latin America, the U.S., Africa? This ought to be easy enough to find out. Where are German language article authors located, etc., etc. Do "overseas Chinese" write disproportionately many articles in the Chinese language Wikipedia?

Although there are millions accounts that were created, some of them are sockpuppets or vandals, some made a few edits and leave, some don't edit at all, and only a handful of those user accounts made over 100 edits. It dosen't necessarily tell me how many active users are there.--PrestonH 02:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I'll ask these ? at the refrence desk.--PrestonH 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if a wikipedia article/page in addition to saying "This page was last modified..." at the bottom of the page, stated the page views to know how popular a particular article is. Idleguy 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been suggested many times. That particular feature has been disabled for performance reasons. There is, however, wikicharts which gives this information for the top 100 most-viewed pages. Tra (Talk) 13:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What happend to wikicharts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.92.4 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this and it disturbs me on privacy grounds. I thought that showing (or keeping track of) how many times individual pages had been viewed was done experimentally a few times several years ago and then it stopped. I see it's started up again. This does not seem like a good idea. Libraries (in the US at least) don't keep track of how many times individual books are looked at (they are forbidden by law from doing this). They can track books being borrowed but not if you just look at the book in the library, and reference books usually cannot be borrowed. See the stat faq of arxiv.org for some more about this, and about why Arxiv doesn't keep these statistics.

Generating these numbers requires processing the server logs which are private, so info like this shouldn't be disclosed without careful consideration and discussion. I personally don't think it's a good idea to release them (or even generate or examine them internally) on any regular basis. 67.117.130.181 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the link you mentioned, the main privacy arguments are that:

1. People may be embarassed to find that an article they wrote is not read often
2. People could manipulate the results using a bot
3. People don't like the idea of 'Big Brother' watching them

To address these points:

1. Only the top 1000 articles are available through Wikicharts, there are 6,909,343 articles in Wikipedia so the vast majority will not show up, so people shouldn't be too concerned if their article doesn't show up.
2. Yes, they probably could quite easily, by sending multiple requests to the toolserver, and without even needing to visit the page itself. However, the results generated are reasonably accurate so I don't think this has been too much of a problem.
3. The tool does not connect any page requests to an IP address or Wikipedia username and the results are totally anonomous.

Tra (Talk) 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine third compliment and perhaps the forth for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the One Hundred Millionth (or in figures: 100,000,000) mark of the total Wikipedians' Edit Counts!!! Yet this whopping number of what both users and Wikipedians have made up of this big free encyclopedia ever since July 2002AD and yet they never stop growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on editing and contributing for more! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Over past few months I have been looking for data on number of active wikipedians but couldnot find it. Is below data available somewhere (for English Wikipedia and may be others as well).

• Number of Wikipedians who edited in last one month (with login and without login).
• Number of Wikipedians who edited in last one week (with login and without login).
• Growth of number of active wikipedians (with login and without login).
• Growth of number of Wikipedian with edit counts > 1000/5000/10000/20000/50000 etc.

Typically this data should exclude the those wikipedians (typically using IP address) who only tests the site for its 'Open Editing By All' policy and then goes off and there may be many belonging to such category may be much greater than number of active vandals. One need to define Active Wikipedian one possible definition could be, the wikipedian who have edited the wikipedia atleast for more than 1 day. Vjdchauhan 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

People who come here might be looking for WP:SB when they type WP:S. Should I add a redirect notice? -Slash-^μιλώ 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have collected all Wikipedia related charts I could find in Category:Wikipedia charts. There is also Commons commons:Category:Wikipedia statistics, where all those graphs should eventually be moved.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Update this page, people! It's so old (since November 30, 2007). --Meno25 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Nov 30 2006? Otherwise, are you from the future? :). And yes i agree. Simply south 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Update! --217.72.64.8 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The stats are from 30 November 2006! --213.250.17.90 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have compiled a list of studies published in Wikipedia space, as well as useful tools published here: see Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering. At the top of this current page (not the redirect) should i add This page is about statistics. For the project on Scottish transport, see WikiProject Transport in Scotland...? Simply south 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In a debate on deletion policy and how long AfDs should last for as a minimum, it would be good to get some evidence based on WP usage stats. So, would it be possible for someone who can do this to compile some or all of the following:

• What proportion of users (for all users or a statistically valid random sample) only access Wikipedia at weekends (with maybe 1% of non-weekend usage allowed)?
• What proportion of users only edit Wikipedia at weekends (with, say, 1% of non-weekend editing allowed)?
• What is the distribution of wikipedia users who access wikipedia every N days? Where N is from 2 to 14 days?

Many thanks --Amaccormack 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki charts and stats has not been updated since October. I asume the stats are there and only need to be put up. Whats going on here. I am happy to help. David Spart 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried visiting http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200403.html and http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200404.html , but I got file not found both times. Are there any available versions of these pages? Andjam 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any stats on anon edits and, recognizing the difficulty of gathering them, the percentage reverted? Seems like I've been seeing less and less anon edits over the last 12 months, and that the bulk of those have just been vandalism. Be neat to see some numbers on the subject. MrZaius^talk 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my stats pages like this one any use for statistical purposes? Please comment on it's talk page. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any plan to present stats for individual articles? In other words, see the weekly or hourly traffic and such for a given article?Hubbardaie 01:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We've apparently been so busy translating computer size into human size that we've forgotten the data the statistics are derived from. We have all these statistics on article count, edit count, word count, traffic, etc, etc. But I can't find the size of Wikipedia in terms of bytes anywhere. In a nutshell: how many gigabytes are there? Specifically, how many bites of text, in all of Wikipedia, and in all of Wikimedia? Have I just not found the right place, or is this information truly not available? Twilight Realm 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What country has the most amount of articles per population?

Example: Do Norway have more articles per its 4,7 million people, then Sweden's 9,1 millions?

Is there any list? Though ofcourse many countries share the same language, like Spanish in Spain and Argentina and so on, and English in many other countries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.241.197 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to find out how many times an article has been viewed? Is it possible to get this info over a period of time? I mean for all articles, not just the 100 greatest. BillMasen 18:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We have the number of registered users - apparently something like 5 million, but I doubt that many of these accounts are still active. A lot would be either retired or sock puppets/vandals etc. This is also relevant for the percentage of users who are admins, which I imagine is a deceptively small percentage which in reality is a lot more than a small fraction of a percent. Richard001 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the top 100 searches at any given time? Is there a way to see the number of views on any given page? Ill take the answer at my user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I found it here: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of reference for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics ?

Furthermore, shouldn't there be some sort of mention that when editor make edits and the pages is thereafter delete those statistics are not included either? --CyclePat (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know about the amount of storage used up in Wikipedia... can someone please include it here...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The WikiChart statistics is not working anymore for some odd reason. Can anybody diagnose the problem of what is going on with this tool? PrestonH 04:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these blowing through this page. One might gain the impression that it is impolite to answer people's queries. Ericoides (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have met two problems in terms of the two websites in the course of being involved in researching Wikipedia. The first came from the website of Wikipedia Statistics Sitemap (http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm) in which the figure of Wikipedians statistics regarding English version is just up to October 2006. Can I have the access to get the statistic figures of Wikipedians and the figures of "Edits per month" after October 2006? The other problem I met stemmed from the website of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awareness_statistics

At the middle of this website, there is a data set, titling the Alexa reach per million measurement for wikipedia.org - leaving me two questions：Can I get the statistic figures with regard to this data set before the date of February 2003? Besides, what makes me confused is what is exact meaning of the term one-week average, while i am conscious of the fact that the list of one-week average will very likely, however, give the impression of certain day, for example：The date of 12 May 2004 and 13 May 2004 both are made up of certain day. What is exactly different from the daily figures, which were exhibited after December 2004?

Thank you so much in advance for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiewi (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I did a little research and, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I put together some stats regarding the time between every 10,000,000th edit. The page is here: [2] One of the reasons I put it together is that I couldn't find statistics like this listed anywhere on this page. Does anyone think this information would be of interest to anyone else? If so, would anyone object to creating a sub page from this one to house these statistics? Or, if someone knows of stats like this already somewhere, please let me know as I am still curious and interested in statistics such as this. Thanks. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there an available list, somewhere in the statistics, of what articles have the most foreign language links? If not, can one be added? This article’s main page has 33 foreign language links. I’ve seen one with 76. What article sets the record for most referred? Greg L (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for demographic data on wikipedia editors? and for readers? I am interested to know who is writing for wikipedia and what characteristics makes up the audience?

Matthews Bs (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Statistics now states the number of "active registered user accounts". But I can't find where that number is defined. What is the criteria for determining which registered user accounts are "active"? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what people say (on IRC #wikimedia-tech) it is the number of distinct user identities found in the recent changes log in the database. There seems to be some confusion, however, whether this looks 1 week or 1 month or 90 days back. In this copy of CommonSettings.php the configuration variable "$wgRCMaxAge = 30*86400" or 30 days (there are 86400 seconds in 24 hours). But is that setting also used for every language of Wikipedia? Entries in the recent changes log older than this value are removed on every 100th edit, according to this piece of source code. --LA2 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The line now says "Active users (registered users with at least one edit or logged action in the past 30 days): 153,549". However, the value doesn't vary every minute, but seems rather static. I don't know how often it is updated. --LA2 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is historical data available for this? It would be far more interesting to see how the ratio between those numbers changes over time and the rate of growth in active users. Similarly, if a db dump is possible anymore, it'd be awesome to see how many editors with 100+ edits drop off every month and how many more join their ranks. This could provide a vital metric for the health of the project. MrZaius^talk 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that historical information would be extremely useful. For example, of all the editors who edited at least 100 times in a given month, how many had that same level of activity a year earlier? Of all the editors a year earlier that had 100 or more edits in the month, how many had 100 or more edits in the same month a year later? For both groups, what does a histogram look like that shows earliest edit (by month)? For the older group, what does a histogram look like that shows the latest edit (by month)?

There does seem to be a bit of historical information on active editors, for a number of months, here (despite the name): Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. But the counts don't seem totally comparable from month to month, nor with the Wikipedia:Statistics count: For example, as I read the table, there were 208,707 editors with one or more edits between mid-August 2008 and mid-September 2008.

And, for what it's worth, the count - as I post this - is 157,889. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's any measurement of the number of words in Wikipedia, or, perhaps, the average number of words per article (which might be more useful because one could just multiply this by whatever the article count is in the future)?--165.123.238.86 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In October 2006 (yes, two years ago) the English Wikipedia contained 609 million words in 1.4 million articles, or 435 words per article. Let's hope these statistics are updated more often in the future. --LA2 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed User:Emijrp/Stats template, as it was not updated for over a year. With all due respect to Emirjp, we have many userpage statistical essays, most of which are similarly not updated, and none of which (including my own) really deserve a spotlight here (I'd make exception if any of them were dynamically or at least regularly updated, but I don't think any are). Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the same manner, I removed the link to User:Emijrp/Popular articles from this link. Still with all due respect to Emirjp, a ~6 months old snapshot of the most popular pages in that hour is not very useful. Any comments are still appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For use in the WRS project, I need a list of the most popular websites Wikipedians use to reference facts. That means counting points for all <ref>http://someurl</ref> elements found in Wikipedia articles. Has anyone already done that? Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

En wiki stats ([3], [4]) are not updated since Oct'06. It would be nice if the reason for this was clearly explained, and a discussion of can this ever be fixed be present as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the numbers are not in wikimedia's favor?Smallman12q (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a place where I can see the number of articles created (and edits) per day?Smallman12q (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see how many pages there are in each namespace? If there isn't could there be? L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se seems dead. What's the replacement for it? --WikedKentaur (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I started a new article page yesterday, June 4. The traffic stats, however, date back to March of this year, with a fair amount of traffic for the past three months. I know there was a single red link to the namespace. Is stats.grok.se actually measuring clicks on red links as well? Or does it also measure search field entries? I can easily do a few tests of my own, but I was hoping maybe someone knew the answer right off the bat. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think stats.grok.se is measuring the number of times a page was accessed, whether that be via a wikilink, Wikipedia's built-in search box, a search engine, etc. Emw (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Kind of spooky, too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just did lots of updates to Gradient descent#Solution of a non-linear system. Can someone have a look at that to be sure I got it right. Before it was using notation not elsewhere used in the article so I just tried to make it make some sense. 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, anyone interested and willing to help with stats at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Statistics? ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Question 1. A Binomial probability distribution has p=0.20 and n=100.

(a) What are expected value and the standard deviation? (b) What is the probability of axactly 24 successes? (c) What is the probability of 18 to 22 successes? (d) What is the probability of 15 or fewer successes?Tuoane Z. (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted an article for next weeks signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats it covers our declining number of active admins and some stats I've prepared at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month on what I think is a the growing wikigeneration gulf between the admin cadre and the wider community. Input from statistically minded Wikipedians would be appreciated, especially in the next few days before publication. ϢereSpielChequers 12:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of the 3m articles, how many are over 100KB size? I could not find the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.56.9 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of a single article shows increased page views and decreased edits by anons. Does anyone know whether this a general trend, particularly in older articles? See Wikipedia_talk:Invitation_to_edit#Stats for details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The general trend in recent years has been that readership is growing at about the same rate as the Internet whilst the amount of editing has stabilised or slightly fallen. As the number of article is still increasing albeit quite slowly, I think it shouldn't surprise if individual articles are getting a higher reader to editor ratio as that is happening across the project. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

thisshows a trough in march/april that looks like a gap in the data rather than a fluke result. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)