Wikimedia page view stats I
For each of the Wikimedia projects there is a new wikistats file which shows page view counts: see following links (in order of traffic volume): Wikipedia, Wikispecial (commons, meta, etc), Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiversity. Each file shows monthly totals, per language and for all languages combined, a forecast for the current month, throughput per unit of time, monthly increase or decrease (percentage at top left of each cell), how much this language contributes to overall monthly total (percentage at top right of each cell) and a small chart for up to 12 months history.
These files have been generated on my home PC, but in the not so distant future they will be updated periodically from the new wikistats server, which is finally arriving (in bits and pieces).
Input for the report are the page request logs that became available starting January 2008.
If some of you find the dense presentation a bit overwhelming, no worries, like many wikistats tables the presentation can be tuned: you can omit percentages and/or color.
For most projects (the ones with many languages) there is a second table. This table shows how a small minority of language projects receives a vast majority of page requests. Over time it will hopefully also show that the distribution becomes more even (or rather reflects more proportionally the number of speakers of that language with internet access).
The following diagram shows a summary of page views per project. This diagram has been manually crafted, but other charts that give overall or per project insights are planned for addition to wikistats.
Posted: October 19th, 2008 under uncategorized.
Comments
Comment from Melancholie
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 6:29 GMT+2
BTW:
For an easier comparison, just hover the per-day figures at THEwikiStics, the monthly numbers will appear then (tool tip)
Somewhat hidden, but it’s there (that’s enough)…
Your +/- coloured table is great; nice regards
Comment from Daniel Kinzler
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 14:33 GMT+2
I’m missing access stats for Wikimedia Commons…
Comment from Erik
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 15:12 GMT+2
Commons is part of Wikispecial:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
Although I’m not sure those page views are very exciting. 99 out of 100 views on Commons are implicit/indirect via images and sound files served on other project pages. These are not registered in current log files.
Comment from Pharos
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 15:45 GMT+2
Why is it called “wikispecial”, then? Wouldn’t it be clearer to label that “other projects” or “smaller projects”?
Comment from Erik
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 18:05 GMT+2
I agree that WikiSpecial is not the ideal term. ‘Other’ is even less descriptive though, other than what? And ‘Smaller’ is entirely wrong: commons is second largest wiki. Anyway I think most people would not have a hard time remembering which kind of wikis to expect in WikiSpecial.
Comment from Pharos
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 19:44 GMT+2
When I first read “WikiSpecial”, I thought this was some new wiki I’d never heard of, and I was wondering what weird sort of reference work it might represent. Maybe “Other Wikimedia projects” would cover it.
Comment from Melancholie
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 20:59 GMT+2
@Commons:
> These are not registered in current log files.
There are two different domains logged for Commons and Co.
* commons.wikipedia.org is ‘commons’ (the one you analysed)
* commons.wikimedia.org is ‘commons.m’ (ranks 9th in Sep)
Commons should show 172,146,220 page hits in Sept.08, see http://wikistics.falsikon.de/200809/ (5,738,207 per day).
Comment from Erik
Time Monday October 20, 2008 at 5:29 GMT+2
I stand corrected. Fixed both report and pie chart.
Indeed I only showed count for commons.wikipedia.org (the old url), not commons.wikimedia.org.
Actually I never realized there were so many direct accesses to commons. Which does not take away from the fact that indirect/implicit accesses are about a hundred times as much.
Comment from Daniel Kinzler
Time Monday October 20, 2008 at 13:27 GMT+2
thanks, erik
Pingback from Trafficmonster Wikipedia: 10 Milliarden Seitenaufrufe im Monat » Monat, Wikipedia, Traffics, Zahlen, Milliarden, Seitenaufrufe, Spielzeuge, Ergebnisse » missfitsbiz
Time Tuesday October 21, 2008 at 14:13 GMT+2
[...] bekanntlich länger. Das bestätigt sich einmal mehr beim Blick auf die frisch veröffentlichte Studie über die Zugriffszahlen der Mutter aller Onlinelexika, die der Statistiker Erik Zachte ins Netz gestellt [...]
Comment from Olier Raby
Time Tuesday October 21, 2008 at 20:40 GMT+2
The pie chart has an error. Using “x million” means that, in September 2008, Wikiquote was viewed 33 500 000 times and Wikipedia 10 175 000 000 times (over 10 billions times).
In the title, we should read “(x 1000)” in order for data to make sense with the table in this page.
If you still want to use “x million”, you must change count for all projects, Wikipedia excepted :
Other : 0.456
Wikiquote : 0.0335
Wikinews : 0.012
…
Keep on the good work.
No need to send me an email.
Comment from Erik
Time Tuesday October 21, 2008 at 23:14 GMT+2
Nope, 10 billion it is. Amazing isn’t it 
Comment from Domas
Time Wednesday October 22, 2008 at 0:30 GMT+2
do note, this is just Article Views, searches, various non-article pages (specials) and other stuff may get excluded
Comment from Naoko
Time Wednesday October 22, 2008 at 19:50 GMT+2
Erik - Thank you for making this killer stats. I love it! You are the man.
Pingback from 10 Mrd. Seitenaufrufe, 60.000 Entwickler und jede Menge Spam » SEO- und Internet-News by TechDivision
Time Saturday October 25, 2008 at 11:42 GMT+2
[...] Im Blog von Infodisiac wurden jetzt die Zugriffszahlen von Wikipedia veröffentlicht. Demnach verzeichnet die freie [...]
Comment from Melancholie
Time Monday October 27, 2008 at 14:20 GMT+2
Explaining Domas’ comment, after asking him:
He means the special requests that are done by using /w/index.php?title= in URL (are not counted then [since I can remember, actually]; no edits, history views, script inclusions, etc.)! Note that bots/scripts should access Wikipedia this way! Only drawback is that many searches are done that ‘obsolete’ way, too…
Comment from Melancholie
Time Sunday October 19, 2008 at 6:12 GMT+2
Nice to see that our numbers are the same this time
* http://wikistics.falsikon.de/200809/
* http://wikistics.falsikon.de/200809/#byProject
(note that I did not include Sep 30 for enwiki (due to Squid problems over 50+ million cached hits of all wikis got mixed with enwiki that day))
I linked your description for comparison.