http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOrigins.htm
Well, if I'm interpreting this correctly, then nearly 90% of our hits come from people following internal links, so somebody must be clicking on them! However, you do make a good point: we have done studies watching how people edit, we haven't done any (to the best of my knowledge) watching how they read. Perhaps we should. On 20 April 2010 20:11, Amir E. Aharoni <[email protected]> wrote: > There was lately a lot of research about making Wikipedia's usability better > for editing. > > Is there any research about the way in which Wikipedia's Actual Readers use > hyperlinks in Wikipedia, both internal and external? > > I am wondering about it, because you know, we have Manual of Style for > internal and external links, essays about the pros and cons of red links, > bots that remove over-linking etc. - yet time after time i meet Actual > Readers that tell me that they didn't understand a word in an article, even > though this word was linked to a good article that explained its meaning. > But they didn't click it and because of that they gave up on understanding > the whole article. > > If One Stupid Reader would tell me such a thing, i wouldn't mind, but Many > Clever Readers told me that. Did anyone try to think about it deeply? > > -- > אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > Amir Elisha Aharoni > > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
