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.

This entry was posted in Wikimedia View(er)s, Wikistats Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Wikimedia page view stats I

  1. Melancholie says:

    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.

  2. Melancholie says:

    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

  3. I’m missing access stats for Wikimedia Commons…

  4. Erik says:

    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.

  5. Pharos says:

    Why is it called “wikispecial”, then? Wouldn’t it be clearer to label that “other projects” or “smaller projects”?

  6. Erik says:

    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.

  7. Pharos says:

    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.

  8. Melancholie says:

    @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).

  9. Erik says:

    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.

  10. Pingback: Trafficmonster Wikipedia: 10 Milliarden Seitenaufrufe im Monat » Monat, Wikipedia, Traffics, Zahlen, Milliarden, Seitenaufrufe, Spielzeuge, Ergebnisse » missfitsbiz

  11. Olier Raby says:

    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.

  12. Erik says:

    Nope, 10 billion it is. Amazing isn’t it :)

  13. Domas says:

    do note, this is just Article Views, searches, various non-article pages (specials) and other stuff may get excluded

  14. Naoko says:

    Erik – Thank you for making this killer stats. I love it! You are the man.

  15. Pingback: 10 Mrd. Seitenaufrufe, 60.000 Entwickler und jede Menge Spam » SEO- und Internet-News by TechDivision

  16. Melancholie says:

    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…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>