Why do many editors use pull quotes, as above, when they should be using block quotes? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

The Miami Herald link goes to the Wire link from the next line. --Geniac (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation brought corrections to the counters, these go back to August 2013 ("Major overreporting in recent months has been fixed today"). There is less contributors, thus less articles' views (to modify a page, you usually load the current version ; and after once modification is noted, the Wikipedia engine sends the new version ; thus, one modification brings two views), and Wikidata -- one-year old -- takes care of interwikis (previously maintained by bots). Knowledge Graph is one amongst many factors to consider. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why folks see Knowledge Graph as leading to a decline in readership of Wikipedia. It actually increases the number of people who see Wikipedia material, without that readership being reported in our figures. Yes, the material is very brief, but it is from Wikipedia. For example, I just searched "Fisher Fine Arts Library" on Google and got a photo from Commons and a 50 word summary of the Wikipedia article. So everybody who searches for the library will likely see this Wikimedia material. The fact that they might not click through to the article has pluses and minuses - but it's clear that more people are seeing more Wikimedia material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there are extra direct links to the full article and commons pictures, so anyone who likes the Knowledge Graph and wants more will visit us first. --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stats here say the overreporting is fully fixed, and any errors due to it have already been eliminated from the data. So the data is accurate, according to the Foundation, and page views are indeed down by 12% in the English Wikipedia, 17% in the German Wikipedia, and so on. Looking at the data for non-mobile page views, the decline is even greater: a whopping 21% for the English Wikipedia, 30% for the German Wikipedia, 29% for the Spanish Wikipedia and so on. Countries like Russia and China where Google isn't the dominant search engine were less affected. A 21% decline in non-mobile page views to Wikipedia is a potential long-term problem: people who do not visit the site on their computer do not see the fundraising banner, and they do not become editors (you can't really edit on a mobile phone). Right now, the Foundation has plenty of money; but if this is the beginning of a long-term trend of declining page views, it may have a negative impact on both the number of new editors coming in to replace those who leave, and on revenue. Which is essentially what the Harvard guy quoted in the Times of India is saying. It also weakens the Wikipedia brand name, and may in time affect Wikipedia's status as a top-ten site.

Another thing is that Google has advertisements. If, over the long term, more and more Wikipedia content is viewed in environments that carry advertising, earning a re-user like Google billions of dollars a year, then that raises its own problems. In theory, there is nothing to prevent Google from forking Wikipedia today, and creating a Googlepedia filled with ads (and perhaps some added bells and whistles). The licence allows it. Google is unlikely to do that now, but long-term I am not so sure. It's done things pretty much like that before. Andreas JN466 13:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're confusing hits for reads. As for multiple hits per edit, have we any ratios for logged in reads vs anon, or reads vs edits? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one of the kinds of commercial re-use that we write for, and that the free content movement is about. Google is very far from the only commercial mirror of Wikipedia, but it may be the wealthiest. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the free content movement really about working for free so that others can earn money off your work? I'm not sure that's progress. Andreas JN466 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some are bothered by that probability. Not me. Of my thousands of Wikiphotos, I've seen two used unattributed in a walking tour brochure and a small travel agency's Web site. With attribution, a British magazine and two New York area neighborhood newspapers. I know about these three because friends noticed the attributions. Probably dozens haven't come to my attention. Maybe hundreds. Somebody's earning money off the work I give away for free. It doesn't bother me. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followup article here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Judith Newman makes clear that Wiki-PR is not conforming with the community ban and is asserting ownership of articles:

"(Wiki-PR) uses a lot of people, with different identities, to edit pages for paying customers and to manage those pages. The paid sock puppets are ready to pounce on edits that don’t adhere to the client’s vision."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It sounds like it's business as usual for them. Andreas JN466 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]