Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report

Wikipedia Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Emily Yahr (January 4, 2018). "Do you fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You're not alone". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 4, 2018. Retrieved December 17, 2020. The site confirmed this Wednesday when editors revealed the most-read English Wikipedia articles of 2017, and seemed fascinated by how many on the list had to do with pop culture, particularly TV shows. [...] In a discussion of the site's top 50 articles for 2017, the editor wrote that he was most struck by the queen's prominence on the list, which was "phenomenal when you consider the fame and ubiquity of many of the entries which fall below her." [...] The data was also a revealing glimpse into the viewing habits for Netflix shows, as the streaming service famously refuses to release ratings information. Wikipedia pages for Netflix's controversial teen suicide drama "13 Reasons Why" and sci-fi hit "Stranger Things" also made the most-read list at No. 10 and No. 20, respectively.
Stephen Harrison (October 9, 2020). "The Wikipedia Battle Over the Tragic Death of a Bollywood Star". Slate. Archived from the original on December 14, 2020. Retrieved December 14, 2020. When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September, her Wikipedia article rocketed to the top of the "Top 25 Report," a weekly list of the most popular articles on English Wikipedia [...] According to the Wikipedia volunteers who compile the Top 25 report, only five other articles [besides Sushant Singh Rajput] have ever seen weekly page views pass the 10 million mark[.]
Andrew Morse (December 28, 2020). "COVID-19, presidential election top Wikipedia's most-read articles in 2020". CNET. Archived from the original on December 30, 2020. Retrieved January 1, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic and the US presidential election dominated the online encyclopedia's year, with seven articles related to the two broad topics landing in its Top 10 for most-viewed articles of the past 12 months. Those seven articles generated a combined 297 million page views, according to preliminary data provided by the site. The Top 10 generated a combined 396 million page views. (Wikipedia published a blogpost with the Top 25 most-read articles on Monday.) [...] Three articles on the coronavirus -- COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory -- netted nearly 145 million page views combined. The articles were Nos. 1, 6 and 8, respectively. More articles on the election made the Top 10, though they were more diverse in terms of topic. Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the 2020 United States presidential election racked up 152 million combined views. They ranked Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9, respectively. Articles on late NBA star Kobe Bryant and Britain's Queen Elizabeth II also made the list, as did an annual article on the year's notable deaths.
Ed Erhart (December 28, 2020). "Pandemics and politics: 2020 through the lens of Wikipedia". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on December 28, 2020. Retrieved January 1, 2021. This is my sixth annual post sharing the list of Wikipedia's most popular articles of the year, and each year I've had to come up with different ways of saying "people really love the latest pop culture" ...
"10 most-read Wikipedia articles of 2020". Gadgets Now. January 8, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2021. 2020 was also the year when for the first time "in the (short) history of this list, more than 50 articles got over 10 million unique views!", noted Wikipedia. Wikipedia has shared a list of top 50 but here we bring you the top 10.
Gwen Aviles (December 27, 2019). "'Avengers', Billie Eilish and Chernobyl among top Wikipedia articles of 2019". NBC News. Retrieved April 18, 2021. Film and television dominated Wikipedia's catalog of top 25 most popular articles of the year

The Top 25 Report

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Report schedule[edit]

As of the April 14 to 20, 2024 report, there have been 590 Top 25 Reports. Of those, 296 have been contributed to by Igordebraga, 148 by Serendipodous, 72 by Milowent, 68 by SSSB, 47 by Mcrsftdog, 41 by YttriumShrew, 33 by Stormy clouds, 31 by Benmite, 31 by TheJoebro64, 29 by OZOO, 29 by Kingsif, 26 by Ollieisanerd, 21 by Rebestalic, 20 by CAWylie, 17 by Rajan51, 14 by Rahcmander, 13 by Shuipzv3, 12 by Max BuddyRoo, 12 by ltbdl, 11 by Soulbust, 10 by A lad insane, 9 by I am RedoStone, 9 by Krimuk2.0, 8 by InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, 7 by Marinette2356, 6 by TheConflux, 6 by ElijahPepe, 6 by Death Editor 2, 6 by GeorgeBailey, 5 by Maplestrip, 5 by Hugsyrup, 5 by Bucket of sulfuric acid, 3 by JFG, 3 by Thatoneweirdwikier, 3 by Ab207, 3 by Spinixster, 3 by Boyinaroom, 2 by Pythoncoder, 2 by FunksBrother, 2 by FoxyGrampa75, 2 by Newtothisedit, 2 by Ktin, 2 by Vestrian24Bio, 1 by Rayukk, 1 by Ahecht, 1 by Od Mishehu, 1 by Rogerknots, 1 by Miraclepine, 1 by Maka the Two Star Meister, 1 by Timbaaa, 1 by Sailawen, 1 by TuorEladar, 1 by Berrely, 1 by Wizzito, 1 by TenorTwelve, 1 by Canadian Paul, 1 by CT55555, 1 by The Optimistic One, 1 by Capsulecap, 1 by JSFarman, 1 by Karnataka

If you'd like to claim a week's report, just put your three tildes (~~~) after a week and the dash.

Useful links regarding "random" spikes:

Mobile Viewership[edit]

This might be the right time for this question, with the start of the 2024 Indian Premier League today. While I definitely agree that articles with primarily non-human views should be excluded from the list, it's a shame that many articles with actual human views are also excluded because of high mobile viewership. Last year, two articles - Indian Premier League and 2023 Indian Premier League - accumulated 32.4 million and 20.8 million views respectively, with 94-96% of the views from mobile phones. One look at Pageviews shows that most of the views for these articles came during the tournament. Considering that most Indians access the internet through their mobile phones, the reason for this high percentage of mobile views seems pretty clear. In fact, there are two more articles related to cricket that accumulated similar views on Wikipedia (2023 Cricket World Cup and Cricket World Cup), which suggests that the IPL's viewership numbers were legitimate. I'm sure there are some other articles that were excluded despite having actual views, but this was the example that I could think off the top of my head.

My point is that a hard blanket limit of 95% is not the best way to filter out articles with non-human views, as it results in the omission of articles with actual human views too, especially with the rise in mobile internet usage across the world since that rule was made 10 years ago. A better way would be to list the articles with over 95% mobile views and check if those views were random or if they are actually legitimate. - Rajan51 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I at least do my best to check, as suspicious spikes always appear, and sometimes don't even have the fishy mobile\desktop numbers to make it more obvious (or is it believable YouTube surpassing 100k daily now?). But the limit is that high for a reason, as the March 23 list shows aside from Indian Premier League-related articles, the others who surpass 95% are clearly automated (XXXTentacion, Pornhub, Porno y helado, XXX (film series), and a TV station) and the explained but still deserving of exclusion Cleopatra. Still, being more lenient towards Indian subjects (after all, the Cricket World Cup was in the Report during the whole duration, even when it finally broke 95%) should not be much of a dealbreaker, as long as those knowledgeable help write the entries. igordebraga ≠ 08:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 95% limit is helpful in a lot of cases. My point is that we need to make sure that articles with actual human views do not get filtered out. And I'll help write the commentary for Indian articles as much as I can. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Participation[edit]

Not enough participation in creating weekly reports; thus, I Propose creating a separate Wikiproject (or at least a Taskforce) would bring in more attention towards participating in weekly reports. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this idea - it'd be a great way to make sure the reports get completed faster. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 07:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I know WP:NOTFORUM and everything, but I just want to thank all editors who've put effort into creating these reports, including the commentaries. An interesting, quick and easy way for visitors, such as myself, to learn more about certain things happening in our world. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]