Meaningless. Given that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a time lag, serious readers would be turning directly to the secondary sources for reliable up to date information, not Wikipedia, on items like the Syria situation. NE Ent 02:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that, because some people use other information sources, the fact that people use this information source doesn't matter? Serendi^podous 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, NE Ent, the programs that count page views can not distinguish "serious readers" from people who mistype Syriana. All this chart (and others like it) are measuring are page views, no program can determine a reader's intent or even if they read the article once they land on it. The chart still conveys information on what people are seeking information about online and I think it's not only useful but interesting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It conveys information on what people are seeking about on Wikipedia. The fact that folks rely on Wikipedia for pop culture crap and don't rely on it for breaking news is actually a good thing; thus snarky innuendo about "No accounting for the wisdom of crowds" and "some insight, perhaps, into humanity's priorities:" are not justified, and are actually an indication that some wiki folks probably need to get out more. NE Ent 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been demanding a second opinion on my work since I started this. Care to join me? Serendi^podous 17:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent, I disagree with your comment about "serious readers." If a reader knows nothing about a given situation, does it make more sense for them to read first from an encyclopedia or from a journalistic source? The answer is an encyclopedia, because the journalistic source does not necessarily provide sufficient background for our uniformed reader; hence why readers check out Wikipedia before they go to Foreign Affairs. Wikipedia is also free and more easily navigated. Furthermore, Wikipedia cites a significant amount of primary sources as well as recently-published secondary sources. I think you not only falsely assume our geopolitical content is based on months-old scholarly articles but also underestimate the size of our audience that doesn't care about pop culture. The Traffic report has proven this time and again to be the case. The woeful public appetite for titillation and gossip is worrisome, but is endemic to humanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Syria uprising started in March 2011 page views for the last week aren't an indication of much. NE Ent 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, while this is getting attention, anyone want to try their wits at the newest raw data? Anyone want to guess why ham got a million views in the 3 days prior to Rosh Hashanah? Or why over half a dozen computer-related articles (such as Central processing unit, Integrated circuit, Computer program and, uh, Penguins) suddenly shot up in views between Sep 2-4? Serendi^podous 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're supposed to an encyclopedia. Reliable sources and all that. NE Ent 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed this particular article is not in the encyclopedia namespace. The Signpost is a work of journalism and thus editorial opinions are justified. Powers ^T 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism ethics and standards says most journalism codes include "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability," Reputable news sources separate news and opinion. NE Ent 18:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, excuse me, I list every article on the page; I simply move the ones I can't find a rationale for to the bottom. If people don't want to read the bottom section, then that's their problem (and mine, since one of the reasons I posted this in the first place was to locate new sources of views). Serendi^podous 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting what you (Serendipodous) are saying? Where did the content "in the manner customary to her profession: doing something in public to offend. " come from? NE Ent 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I'll try and be a bit more judicious when I repost the list onto the Signpost next time. Now unless you want to charge me with libel, can we put this to rest? Serendi^podous 19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the satirical tone, through I wonder how long till it is ruled "unfit for an encyclopedia" and made more boring? :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find Serendipodous's work to be both insightful and entertaining reading. What NE Ent called "meaningless" in the first comment is actually quite meaningful -- the internet's users spend much more attention on inane subjects than troubling crises that don't directly affect them. Yes, many many more people know more about Miley twerking than anything about Syria. That may upset folks, but I would suggest that this has probably always been the case, ever since the rise of literate mass populations. You find it throughout 19th century American history, for example, the most popular books and newspapers as the century progressed were often low-brow.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the word before today. I saw it three times. I think all three cases were either in comic strips themselves or in the comments that go with the strips.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This week's list has captured the moment that "twerking" became mainstream, I'd say.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]