789
edits
Changes
no edit summary
This claim should be removed. I am not doing so yet, in the interest of constructive discussion.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
This claim should be removed. I am not doing so yet, in the interest of constructive discussion.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps reduce it to a footnote. I agree that it's not very relevant given how old it is, and that it is a self-selection survey (is that the correct term?). However, in 2000/01 the number of Internet users was vastly smaller than now, so perhaps the statistic has ''some'' relevance, hence my suggestion of keeping it in a footnote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps reduce it to a footnote. I agree that it's not very relevant given how old it is, and that it is a self-selection survey (is that the correct term?). However, in 2000/01 the number of Internet users was vastly smaller than now, so perhaps the statistic has ''some'' relevance, hence my suggestion of keeping it in a footnote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::I don't see how two thousand people on an obscure site could be considered a legitimate claim to popularity, even in 2000 and 2001. Alexa.com's site statistics for that time for WND indicate that it had about double its current popularity, but even that is less than 4,000 in rank among popular sites. By comparison, msn.com and google.com were entire orders of magnitude more popular (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/worldnetdaily.com?site0=worldnetdaily.com&site1=msn.com&site2=google.com&y=t&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=max&size=Medium). Thus, even in perspective with the time, this statistic is grossly out of correlation with actual traffic results, and accordingly it has almost no relevance, and certainly not in perspective with what the current article says. I am just going to remove it entirely.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:45, 1 March 2008 (EST)