Here are the top 1000 Wikipedia article traffic statistics for December of 2010.  You may change the date to any recent year and month that you want to:

http://stats.grok.se/en/

Or you can type in a specific topic of interest and track the change in interest of that topic over the same time period. 

For instance, Adam Curry was viewed 5807 times in July of 2011, up from 5243 viewings in July of 2010.  http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/Adam%20Curry

John C. Dvorak was viewed 3494 times in July of 2011, up from 2805 times in July of 2010.
http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/John_C._Dvorak

That is a pretty cool tool.   

I think you're missing what's really important here.

Jesus is slightly less interesting to people than human penis size and slightly more interesting than pierogies. I wonder what the religious wrong will make of that. More importantly, how would cagematch's horse penis post do against these if posted on wikipedia?

I think you're missing what's really important here.

Jesus is slightly less interesting to people than human penis size and slightly more interesting than pierogies. I wonder what the religious wrong will make of that. More importantly, how would cagematch's horse penis post do against these if posted on wikipedia?

Pedeheh and Kubasa are not comparable to emotional fanaticism, or did you mean if posted on  Wikifelia?

: Misanthropic Scott  August 18, 2011, 12:54:55 PM

I think you're missing what's really important here.

Jesus is slightly less interesting to people than human penis size and slightly more interesting than pierogies. I wonder what the religious wrong will make of that. More importantly, how would cagematch's horse penis post do against these if posted on wikipedia?

Pedeheh and Kubasa are not comparable to emotional fanaticism, or did you mean if posted on  Wikifelia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

"It's a joke son."

I meant in position on that list as if the number of times a page was viewed on wikifelia (cute pun) indicated the relative importance to humanity of the page topic. I guess that wasn't my best joke. Oh hell well.
 

I think you're missing what's really important here.

Jesus is slightly less interesting to people than human penis size and slightly more interesting than pierogies. I wonder what the religious wrong will make of that. More importantly, how would cagematch's horse penis post do against these if posted on wikipedia?

Yes, it is an interesting list, isn't it? 

In December 2010, Bill Clinton's Wikipedia page ranked number 651, just 4 higher than Vin Diesel's  page at 655.  
The Periodic Table was ranked at 784, which is more than South Park at 788, but less than Christine O'Donnell's page at 781.  

Pink(the singer) 186, Albert Einstein 187,  Jersey Shore 198.  Go figure.

At least we know what is important in this world. 

Here are the top 1000 Wikipedia article traffic statistics for December of 2010.  You may change the date to any recent year and month that you want to:

http://stats.grok.se/en/

Or you can type in a specific topic of interest and track the change in interest of that topic over the same time period. 

For instance, Adam Curry was viewed 5807 times in July of 2011, up from 5243 viewings in July of 2010.  http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/Adam%20Curry

John C. Dvorak was viewed 3494 times in July of 2011, up from 2805 times in July of 2010.
http://stats.grok.se/en/201107/John_C._Dvorak

That is a pretty cool tool.   

How does this compare to Google Search or Yahoo Search statistics? Or is that tool even available?
Me thinks that there is a misleading aspect to the Wiki traffic tool, in that current news events, user bias as to search engine, plus various other variables enter into the graph skews and rankings. Time being not the least of these variables!
I think you are onto something that is bigger and needs to be explored and developed! I will leave it to you as it is your thread!

I think you are onto something that is bigger and needs to be explored and developed! I will leave it to you as it is your thread!

I wouldn't try to read too much into the hit counts for various wikipedia pages. I just tried to make it into something amusing, especially when I saw that human penis size had a higher hit count than Jesus. Imagine how many hits a page regarding Jesus' penis size would get! Nuns could chime in on the imagined penis size of their imagined husband and we could average the values. Nah. That would be silly ... almost as silly as marrying a dead guy.

My reply is in regards the Science of Statistical Analysis and I was ignoring any specific content, religious or otherwise!
aka ignore the ignorant and deal with substantive numerical analysis of Internet hits regardless of the portent of what the hits are aimed at. Site hit frequency as modified by recent related events is difficult to discern why it was selected and then by geographic area to compound the complexity followed by ethnic or racial affiliation does make for skewed charts.

My reply is in regards the Science of Statistical Analysis and I was ignoring any specific content, religious or otherwise!
aka ignore the ignorant and deal with substantive numerical analysis of Internet hits regardless of the portent of what the hits are aimed at. Site hit frequency as modified by recent related events is difficult to discern why it was selected and then by geographic area to compound the complexity followed by ethnic or racial affiliation does make for skewed charts.

Yeah ... science and statistical analysis (two very different things in most cases) are not what I was going for here. I was going for humor and amusement. I do agree with you. I was just stating that science and even statistical analysis are far more than is worthwhile in this case. There are no meaningful data from which to begin. It does not say anything to state that more people clicked on the human penis size page than clicked on the Jesus page. Most likely people already know what they want to about Jesus. Where they don't, they're fine making shit up (e.g. Jesus was opposed to abortion and socialized medicine and taxes ... where does it say that??!!?).

So, again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't think there's any serious topic to be discussed based on the data of wikipedia page clicks.