How many times does the Daily Mail have to publish bad (and often purposely fabricated) information before we stop allowing it as a source? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course as medical source Daily Mail is relatively useless. However, despite what some notable Wikipedians say, it is not the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. A source to be used carefully, more carefully than The Times, perhaps, but not as carefully as The Sun, or The Daily Star. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
"a number of experienced editors are attributing the drop to the normal summer decrease in Wikipedia traffic" .. if that was true we should also see a similar drop in mobile. -- GreenC13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I always assumed lower traffic in the summer (and a spike in vandalism in the Fall) was due to young people whose primary access to the internet is via their school. Mobile users generally have their own devices. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google is specifically using a "micro-Wikipedia" <g> for searches - many folks just want date of birth, death, and a celebrity overview - rather than the generally hard-to-read (see articles on "readability of Wikipedia"), massive articles (the vast majority of future users will use mobiles or tablets) which all-too-often dominate Wikipedia. I commented a long time ago about this inevitable phenomenon, but no one noticed <+g>. Expect Google-driven traffic to go down substantially more in future.
(from the cited article) "The problem is that a few months ago that click might have gone to Wikipedia. And in fact the info in the Google box is drawn from Wikipedia. So on the one hand, this is good for Wikipedia (its info is featured prominently and the box does give Wikipedia a link). But on the other, Wikipedia thrives on clicks and this box is designed to save you from actually clicking through if you only need the bare bones info."Collect (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does Wikipedia thrive on clicks? As far as I can see there is zero downside if someone gets the same information directly from Google and it answers their question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my claim. It is a quote from an article which I certainly did not write, so your question should be addressed to the person who wrote the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
intimidated? I don't believe a word. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
← Back to In the media