Wikipedia talk:2022 Top 50 Report

I disagree with hiding or removing material

If there is a point to the traffic reports, it is to either a) see which topics are of interest to the English=speaking world or b) see which articles are highly trafficked and yet little-improved. You may not like what people want to know, but it's what people want to know, and that that is of journalistic, historical and Wikipedian value. Serendi^podous 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because you don't like the topic, doesn't mean we can hide it. Otherwise let's also hide everything relating to the Ukraine war. This constitutes a form of WP:CENSORSHIP. SSSB (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not like we're losing much with Elizabeth Holmes or Premier League. Serendi^podous 17:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I third this. Anyone interested in reading the Report is concerned about what the most-viewed articles in a given time period were, regardless of the content. Contrary to what igordebraga has written, no one is "giving" Jeffrey Dahmer the top spot on the list, because having a spot on the Report is not meant to be an honor for whoever, wherever, or whatever takes a spot. It is simply a reflection of what pages have received the most views, and this year, for better or for worse, it happened to be Dahmer. You can discuss how disgusting it is that he took the top spot in your entry, but attempting to keep him off the list entirely does reek of censorship, as SSSB said. benǝʇᴉɯ 08:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To add my view, I don't care. I find it an extra quirk of our humorous list to have some random hidden entries, so I might prefer if it's kept for the fun, but I have no strong feeling.
Slightly separately, I also think we might want to include all articles that achieved over 10M views again, so we might as well extend at the bottom. Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I already said that I was considering not working on the annual list because of this #1. Better not go so far, but if I have to compromise, the two entries will only be reinstated when 2023 starts and the list is ready, focus on getting everything else ready - and I already claimed those two, so it's my say on them. (about extending, I did that in 2020 because 59 articles passed 10 million views - along with recognizing how that year the compiling tools crashed and we were forced to do everything - when the other years never had all 50 crossing the threshold; there will be a few 10+ missing, but not as many, but if most of you want the spillover....) igordebraga ≠ 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If you do this job long enough, you develop a bemused, detached and ironic disdain for the English-speaking world. But you gotta confront it head on. Serendi^podous 13:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Why draft?

Why is this still a draft article? Surely all the 2022 data is complete by now. WWGB (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The commentary isn't. SSSB (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus, in the past two years, once the tool that compiles views releases the annual list, turns out that even if I try to keep up with high view articles something slips beneath the cracks (List of MCU movies and George VI - plus a few in the 50-60 extension - in 2020, UK and Freddie Mercury in 2021). igordebraga ≠ 06:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this article open source or a work of journalism?

Given that the various entries are all listed as being composed by individual authors, should both the authors and the readers have the right to expect that the writing is in fact by those authors? Serendi^podous 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes. But at the same time, I would encourage copyediting of each other's writing, and starting a disucssion if we feel something is in bad taste, or with have other issues, etc. SSSB (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how the IP's removal of specifics improved the intro. Serendi^podous 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I reverted the change SSSB (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: There are five countries in the list. You wrote on four. Any chance you can complete the set with India? igordebraga ≠ 06:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am by no means a scholar of India but I will give it a shot. Serendi^podous 09:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer etc.

Just to say as an anti-"the top section", I completely agree with keeping Dahmer in the collapsible box. It's not altering the record, it's not hiding anything, it's simply saying that that should not be the top entry in a light-hearted, humorous list. Keeping the top at the Russian invasion reflects one of the main stories of 2022; a cannibal who died in disgrace does not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but having the box auto-collapsed is quite literally hiding him. I completely agree with the rational for such an action, but the truth is that this is primarily a report of the most viewed articles in 2022, and it contains humour second. And whilst Dahmer is not one of the main stories of 2022, he is responsible for the highest proportion of visitors. However wrong that may be that is the main purpose of this report. The entry on Dahmer makes a plenty strong case for him not being the top entry, without having to hide him to do it. SSSB (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Congrats!

13 years on Wikipedia and I just discovered the top 50 of the year report. I was vaguely aware of the top 25 of the week report. I suspect when future historians look at the Wikipedia era, this page will become one of the most important of the encyclopedia. It's an indicator of what people are really interested in -- not what they say they are interested in. (As a toiler in the obscure, I take an adverse pride in not having contributed to any of the top 50 pages on the list -- and not even having heard of many of the subjects that made the list.) So, that is by way of saying: continue the good work! Smallchief (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)