Talk:WorldNetDaily

Accuracy

It should be noted that the claim of the article, copied from WorldNetDaily, that they were the most popular website on the internet, is taken pretty far out of context of the actual cited evidence. WorldNetDaily says they were voted such by "global100.com", a site which has not existed for years, but by checking archive.org we can see how they arrived at this total. It turns out that only a few thousand (usually around two to three thousand) people voted for it, and in fact that is a majority of people who frequented the site in the first place. This is supported by some of the other sites on this "most popular on the internet" page at any give time... it seems spectacularly unlikely that the Feminist Majority Foundation was the seventh most popular site on the internet, after all, well above Yahoo!.

A sample of the "rankings": http://web.archive.org/web/20010330192539/www.global100.com/chart.asp?chart=7

This claim should be removed. I am not doing so yet, in the interest of constructive discussion.--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. 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.--TomMoore 22:45, 1 March 2008 (EST)