text:
Talk:API

older entries
Sunit Pinto is working on API.

Wait a minute, SNMP isn't an API is it? It is a protocol. Don't know much about CORBA, but I wouldn't call DCOM an API. Robneild 15:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The definition at the top of this document is too inclusive, with the result that protocols would be considered APIs. The common use of the term is for a collection of classes or functions. CORBA is many things (protocol, language mappings, type system...) and it happens to include an API as well - the ORB API. But most people would not call CORBA an API. At most, it is a language for expressing APIs. Yaronf 23:31, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of API's is way too inclusive. The API is the programming language interface provided to users, in that programming language. This is different than protocols, which usually represent the "wire" format of the actual communication. This might be the may web interfaces, IIOP in CORBA, or the conventions used in a socket call. Representing these in XML and ontologies are the next evoloution of Protocols - but not of API's. I contend that API's are to be minimized as they create basically the next N squared problem in that to get them implemented in every language, you have a very uphill battle, let alone making changes. Protocols, on the other hand, can evolve and you let the languages find their way to create the protocol. The reference to ontologies would fit with the Protocols, but not with the API.s

Too technical
This article is much too technical for even a computer-oriented person. It needs to have the introduction completely re-written and the technical details relegated to a lower section. Of course, I don't have the time...195.176.162.18 (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Feedback/edits on the new lead would be great. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 00:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all good 107.122.241.112 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

API Category
I was thinking about creating Category:Application programming interface, creating a reposity for all the API's that exist in wikipedia, (DirectX, win32, opengl, etc)
 * I like this idea Jontce 14:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a better section and I'm new to commenting, so I've included my comment here. Let me apologize in advance if my thoughts are not in the proper area. I wanted to comment on the over-explanation of ABI's in this article. Someone needs to go back and clean that up. If ABI plays an important role in explanation, then so be it, but it needs to just have a link to another wikipedia section explaining ABI. For someone who does not understand all the basic concepts behind API or ABI, the additional information of ABI here simply threw me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisban35 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Little bit of confusion...
This may sound stupid but what is the difference between an API and a library?

The API is only the interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.67.99 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply, an API is a contract to adhere to while a library is an implementation of that contract.

 * In my experience the term 'API' is used interchangeably to mean the library, its interface and the 'contract'. I'm thinking especially about the Java API. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * That still doesn't make sense.  I think what you guys are really talking about, is the table of symbolic labels (sometimes including expandable macroes) that the symbolic assembler pulls in from disk, processes, and generates executable object code.  Good assemblers let you import other people's tables of labels, and mix them with other people's source code, and more or less bypass the first pass of assembly before generating code.   If that is what you are talking about, the concept of an API is completely illusory.   The execution context really depends on which microprocessor you are working with, in particular, and how the lines of I/O are being dealt with.    For instance, there are microprocessors with extremely limited stacks, and I doubt that a single one of your so-called API's would work with them.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold text== Framework,API,Library,Protocol ==

Dear All,

Documentation in particular could use further citation than what currently exists, and, if possible, a less technical definition. Or for that matter, simply a more layman's description of what is going on in the code.

Dear All I think it is gona be a big miss understanding here, as a programmer in the first place and Systems Analyst, i can tell that we are talking about this Pyramid:

---Program--- -Libraries- ---APIs--- ---Framework--- --Operating System Layer--->Protocols---> Operating System

the programmers usually make their own libraries using calls to APIs which usually be a part of a particular framework which must be based in a particular operatin system, and the operating system uses a protocol to manage the communication with another operating system.

as an example, if we are talking about :

The Program-- Programmer Made Library to manage what ever tasks .NET APIs (System.Windows, System.Windows.Form...etc) --.NET Framework- -WINDOWS XP--

Best Regards Hossam Abbas

That pyramid is deceptive. It is possible (for example) for a single API to be spread across multiple libraries - or for one library to implement multiple API's. An API is a specification for an interface - typically between a program and a library - but possibly between two libraries - or between a 'plugin' and a program. An API is more like a piece of documentation than an actual library. A single API can apply to multiple implementations - and hence to multiple libraries. I can write an OpenGL application that links both to (say) nVidia's OpenGL implementation and the Mesa OpenGL implementation. Two implementations of the same API. The reason we need the concept of an API is precisely because the word library doesn't work.

SteveBaker 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Too many links.
I don't think we need all of those links to Example APIs - we are getting dangerously close to link-spam. Also, the WP:MOS recommends only using external links for references (which ours are not) - or to cover things not adequately described in the article or other Wikipedia articles. Since we have a good list of internal links to example API's, I move to delete all of the external examples.
 * There are two external links in the example list of API's (MediaWiki and Drupal). I suggest we replace them with internal links to the project pages, because external links should be placed under External links section. The external Drupal API link already exists at Drupal, and the external MediaWiki API link could be moved to MediaWiki. --Luen (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My feeling on the matter is that if an API is not important enough to have its own page, independent of the product it is an API to, then we probably shouldn't be linking to it. So I'd just delete these two links, along with everything else in the rightmost column, and the iPhone API. JulesH (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to get it's Featured Article status back again. SteveBaker 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Application Programming Interface OR Application Program Interface
Just to check; technically is it an Application Programming Interface or is it an Application Program Interface? I know this is very picky, but an Encyclopedia should get it right. (please don't flame me). Thanks --Skoorb 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Application Program Interface since the interface remains between the application and the library long after the act of Programming has been completed. One might even (theoretically) define the API after all of the programming has been completed - for example when you decide that a part of an existing application could be split off and made into a library if only you wrote down a specification for the API. However, it's a small thing - and since this is one of those informal terms that has gradually taken hold, it's perfectly possible that some users take one meaning and others the reverse position. SteveBaker 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen API defined as an Abstract Programming Interface. ChopMonkey 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another term which is often used and makes IMHO most sense is 'Application Programmer Interface', as it is an interface for the developer to write a new application.

I agree with the comment above, 'Application Programmer's Interface' is also used often. 88.255.168.161 08:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"An API is to the programmer what a GUI is to the end-user. The 'P' in API stands for "Programmer", not "Program", to highlight the fact that APIs are used by programmers, who are humans." Maybe there should be a reference to the fact, that API has different decronyms which lead to different interpretations. 85Pando (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IETF RFCs, IEEE, and many other highly reputable sources break it out as "Application Programmer Interface". This is the break-out that is taught in the University of Maryland where I received my graduate degree. The break-out given in this article is a mistake. - --User:aja12aja 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 * What does "programming" mean in the word API?
 * in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/programming we have two meanings :
 * 1/
 * (computing) The act of writing a computer program.
 * Management wanted to know how much programming the project would need.
 * 2/
 * The software that controls a machine, or the logic expressed in such software; operating instructions.
 * A robot's programming doesn't allow for love.
 * could be Application Software Interface a synonym for Application Programming Interface ? 86.253.37.230 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

API redirects here
Edcolins Why would you restore this. API doesn't redirect to this page it goes to the disambiguation page. Try it. jbolden1517Talk 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

API should redirect to disambig not here. It's totally unfair to other disciplines to monopolize just because it's common in our field. --Treekids 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
So how do most people pronounce API? A P I, or appie?

 * I—and every programmer I've worked with—pronounce it "A" and in "day", "P" as in "Pea in a pod", and "I" as in "I love you." HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "appie" is too easily confused with other words, many of them emotional. Programmers hate that ;-)  --Treekids 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Open versus closed
I would like to have a better description of when an API is "open" versus when it is "closed". The current definition focuses on rights of usage and access to source code, but I think the idea is broader than that. For example, I think an API is also "open" when it is clearly documented and able to be extended through some defined process. I also think standardization plays a part in this discussion. Thoughts? --Mwfnwa 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this aspect needs work. the emphasis is on the financial cost of access and application. how about addressing the issue question of who gets access? as i understand it, an open api (or any open technology) is equally open to all comers.

in other words, if make my technology available free of charge to my friends, charge others for it, and do not make it available at all to those i regard as potential competitors, my technology (api or not) is not open. (i seem to recall that one of the standards bodies makes this an important part of their definition of "open standard." ie, not whether there is a charge, but whether or not the same thing is available to anyone willing to pay and at the same price.)  - ef

Multi-language API's
Shouldn't we have an example of a language-independent API, such as DOM?:

The Document Object Model is a platform- and language-neutral interface that will allow programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of documents. (From http://www.w3.org/DOM/)

Please, take not that there is also at least another internation meaning of "API": Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient. I don't know how to do, but I think that Wik should mention it. Ciao

Source code definition a requirement for being an API?
I don't believe it is true that an API may only be defined at a source code level. I don't see any reliable sources that use this definition (a google search that eliminates duplicates and obvious copies of this article turns up nothing useful). Furthermore, I see plenty of examples of APIs that include details that are not source-code specified, e.g., the Win32 API's reliance on Microsoft's structured exception handling implementation, the MS-DOS API (which specifies register sets that must be initialized to particular values and machine instructions that must be executed to perform a particular function - see, e.g. for evidence that the term API is used to refer to this), and so on. The insistance on including the phrase "source code" in the definition, when the next sentence makes it clear that source code is the usual way of defining an API, is simply unsource POV insertion.

 * You are right that some vendor APIs include information that would normally be considered part of an ABI. I suspect that the intent on the vendors part is to produce a single document, rather than have separate API and ABI documents.  This vendor usage ought to be mentioned in the article.  In many ways the Microsoft APIs are heavily tied to Windows and might be called ABIs with an API veneer.  I would also point to the P in API, it is a programming interface; one that gets used when writing software, ie, source code. Derek farn 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it again yet, to give those who favour its inclusion a chance to justify it. But I think they'll have a hard job. JulesH 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When source code is not provided, there is a real issue here that the API definitions are almost always at best ambiguous and underspecified. Simply, the black box mapping is never specified in practice in these cases, nor is the mapping unambiguously defined (basically in contrast to when the API is accompanied by source code and an open source build tool chain -- http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html ). Hozelda (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are not giving tools to a programmer that can directly interface with a component/library/remote system behavior, without introducing intermediate abstractions, you have something other than an API. You need some programmatic interface (API!) for programmers to use, and the interface should be a direct one, not a general purpose "here's a socket, send packages in this sequence with this structure". The latter is a transport protocol. If you have a RESTful web service speaking JSON, you only have an API if your platform can abstract away the protocol specifics. Otherwise, it's just a web service call you're making, no doubt using some other intermediate API to help you (sockets, HTTP, etc). 72.142.11.38 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Decreasing quality
I note that this version of the article is in many ways superior to the current one. It's easier to understand, containing as it does a good example of an API described in terms that are relatively easy for a layman to understand (it could have been improved, but as it was it was simply deleted), and the text appears to me to be better written. Why have we destroyed a perfectly reasonable article? JulesH 14:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto! The current article is too technical. And I just saw that we actually have a category for that! Nice! Strawberry Island (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the word "inculcate" is used in first paragraph of the introduction! Can't someone find a way to describe whatever is trying to be said there using simpler words? I know this isn't on the simplified English version of Wikipedia, but, come on, I am a native English speaker, I had to look the word up, and I STILL don't know what they were trying to say there. Most people who are viewing this article are NOT going to be a combination of a college English major and programmer.Mmortal03 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An earlier version of this article made it clear that the [original] purpose of an API was to allow an application coded in a standard language and using a standard API [e.g. POSIX] the ability to easily port to a different platform that provided the same language and API(s). At the same time that the term API originated (early 1990s), ABIs were being explored [e.g. Java] as another solution to program portability. The acronym has [been bastardized to] come to mean "any interface" and "any method signature in an interface" which I regard as a useless development diluting a meaning-rich term. It's now difficult to impossible to describe the evolution of portability and to speak about lessons from the past. Disappointing. Tangential to the discussion about removal of meaning/nuance from the language, as a native English speaker (who spent much of his childhood with a book in one hand and a dictionary in the other), I'd be ashamed to admit that I didn't wish to take a minute to expand my vocabulary. I recommend wiktionary.org/wiki/ – --Koan911 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hihi

Working on cleaning up disambiguation pages...the one for API (disambiguation) has well over 500 links to it and more than 99% are meant for this page...I see there's been some discussion in the past about this...we are not saying that the programming language is the ONLY or even BEST definition, but its the one that people are most likely looking for when they type API into the search box. So I'd ask that you consider allowing me to do the redirect and put the hatnote on this page please? Thank you for your consideration. Legotech (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

requesting clarification of the term 'Remote Procedure Call'
Hello,

I would like to quote what was said about language independent APIs - " Language-independent APIs are written in a way that means they can be called from several programming languages. This is a desired feature for a service-style API which is not bound to a particular process or system and is available as a remote procedure call."

Now what this implies to a relative newcomer like me is that one can have APIs written which can be accessed by programs written in whatever language there is out there. But after reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_procedure_call article on 'Remote Procedure Call' what comes to my mind is that 'remote procedure call' is a mechanism whereby the computer could have one of the sub-routines of the currently executing program to run in parallel on a physically remote computer. And it clearly states in the article that it is a paradigm of distributed computing. So can anyone please explain how does this relate to 'language-independent APIs' ? Some scenarios would be of help here.Aijazbaig1 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

APIs
As a technical writer working on APIs, it seems to me that a bit of grammar help might be a good idea in this article; too often "API" is used to mean one call of many that make up an API and thus too much documentation uses "APIs" where one API (consisting of a multitude of API calls/functions) is meant. --iFaqeer (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Also, perhaps API's might be appropriate in places.  Sounds like you are the ideal person to make the edits.  Derek farn (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

API management (web services)
This section is almost by definition not about APIs, but how they fit into a larger sofware enterprise. I think it would be better off under Web Services or some such. There are all kinds of other troubles with this article (e.g. I think it is too Web-centric) but the new section, while in good faith, I think belongs elsewhere.

Perhaps put in a separate article and then link to it using main or something?

Best wishes.

SimonTrew (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm of the opinion that we should probably purge this article of most (if not all) references to web service APIs. They are fundamentally different, and are better thought of as a protocol than an API, to my mind.  Certainly they don't fit the description of the subject in the lead section. JulesH (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I am roughly in agreement; I don't they are totally* irrelevant, but agree most of the time here they are being used to at a very broad description level. The google maps API, for example (I don't know it well) is to my mind an IPI: you submit some XML or SOAP or something to a well know endpoint (an URL of some kind, an http address I think) and it needs to have coords and scale and the other things you expect from maps. Or the google search API probably simpler and better. But "Google" is not an API (it's not suggesting it is here, just using it to try to make a useful distinguishing feature). So yeah most of it is way above the abstraction level of an API. SimonTrew (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * BTW I wondered whether COM should be thought of as an API, protocol (it's not really a protocol) or whatever, but on balance I think the amount of stuff defined in COM (and Java etc) qualifies as APIs if they are not, by a 100% strict definition, an API of themselves. SimonTrew (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short section describing Web APIs (which could use a bit of editing & additional references) because this phrase is now in common parlance, whatever the technical accuracy of describing these services as APIs. Danja (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

API did not originally refer to web API's simply because they didn't *exist* at the time. It's absurd to get pedantic and nitpick about the meaning of terms which were never intended to have rigid definitions in the first place. Google themselves refer to their own Maps services as an API -- are we going to say that the guys at Google don't understand computer terminology? Limbo socrates (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An API is just an interface. Web services define formal contracts (WSDL for SOAP, REST is mean to be self-describing, though Open API is also present). That addresses the I part in API. With COM, we see something similar; the I part is dealt with. Focus on the Application Programming part. WSDL allows you to generate client stubs (and server skeletons). Most IDL based schemes work this way, so RPC, CORBA,DCOM and SOAP/WSDL are in that category. The generated code is essentially your API. Without code, you just have protocols. Consider, every DB vendor has a protocol that their database drivers uses to talk to the database. If we use that protocol directly, (if we could), are we using an API? No. Obviously not. What of RESTful web services? The interface is defined by HTTP + the resource format. One may even have an OpenAPI description. If your resource format happens to be JSON, you can use the web service without generated client code on a JavaScript platform; all operations have been standardized (GET, PUT, etc), and so the API *is* in large part the HTTP client your platform supports. Or so it is argued. This does make for clumsy APIs, though, which simply defer to HTTP (protocol) semantics. If your subject matter is complex, you may be tempted to write a client-api which shields all the HTTP-ness of the "web api" away from the programmer. 72.142.11.38 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I still don't get it
It's late here so maybe it's just me, but I've read the article and I still don't really understand what an API is, or what actual functions it would be used for, and I'm not a stupid person or someone who has no idea about computing at all. People often use the abbreviation in association with Twitter, and I've heard people talk about API limits etc. Someone above has suggested it's too technical and I think maybe they're right... I'll come back tomorrow when I've slept and re-read it and see if I can get my head round it any better. In the meantime if anyone has any expertise in making articles like this more accessible to the average Joe or Joanna, I think it would be useful to look at a bit of a rewrite? 91.107.207.207 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I skimmed through the main article, and the whole thing looks like it is only intended for people with modern computers, and not computers from the 1980s.  Are they talking about tables of symbolic labels that the assembler reads in when processing source code, and churning out object code?   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph
Here's a proposal for a rework of the first paragraph:

In computer science, an application programming interface (API) is a standardized specification for an interface which defines how an application program may request services from the libraries and/or operating systems which provide the services. It may include specifications for routines, data structures, object classes and protocols used to communicate between the requesting software and the software that provides the services. Davemck (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The API - protocol relationship
The article's discussion of how APIs and protocols relate to each other seems confusing and incomplete. Statements like "An API can also be an implementation of a protocol", "API provides a library to be used directly", and "APIs are specific to a given technology" are unclear, most likely inaccurate, possibly even incorrect. In my opinion, it is certain that:

1) There is a relationship between APIs and protocols

2) This relationship is important for describing

2.1) the differences between local (in-process)and remote APIs

2.2) the differences between APIs giving access to the same service or functionality from different programming languages and environments

2.3) the differences between SOAP- and REST-based Web APIs (providing access to identical functionality)

2.4) the precise role of the language bindings

2.5) abstract interfaces which exist only in form of documentation, without explicit or automatically generated language bindings

I don't think this article contains a satisfactory discussion of the above points.

Part of the problem was discussed here before and it has to do with the "wide" versus "narrow" definition of APIs. The "wide" definition includes any interface that provides programmatic access to a service or functionality. The "narrow" definition considers APIs strict in the context of a given programming language, environment or technology. The article starts out by giving the "wide" definition " ...particular set of rules and specifications that software programs can follow to communicate with each other" but the section about protocols treats the subject by taking the "narrow" point of view. This inconsistency is very confusing.

I have a relatively good understanding of the subject, but I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't have references so I'm a bit hesitant to edit the article. Is anybody interested in working with me to clarify the topic? --Fmihaly (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Ferenc

 * Thank you for your suggestion, I think it will improve the Protocols secion. Feel free to make those changes by yourself. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.

 * The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and other editors can follow the page history to watch changes and add their opinions. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Diego Moya (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fluent API description removed
I wonder who did remove the part on fluent APIs: I'm editing the "advanced explanation" part of this page since a long time in step-by-step way, and that was a part I was going to develop. So why was it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.56.17 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of proxy talk
Perhaps mention of the existence of API proxies like Mashery, API Axle (my project), Apigee and 3scale are worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.214.141 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Copyrightability of APIs
I think there should be a section about the Not Copyrightability of APIs according to the veredict in the "Oracle v. Google" lawsuit --Aliuken (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Apple
I believe that the sentense "Apple Inc. has shown less concern, breaking compatibility or implementing an API in a slower "emulation mode"; this allows greater freedom in development, at the cost of making older software obsolete" should be removed (or reworded at the very least) as it comes off as being biased towards Microsoft. Also, no citation is provided to back this statement and I have been unsuccessful in finding such a reference.

Mfd24 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy section
I note that this edit removed the section "Language used". I get the impression that this was supposed to be vandalism because the next edit, by the same editor, is this. However, the section seems to missing the point. Aren't all APIs language-independent? The section did have no sources.

While we are on the subject of dodgy sections, the "Documentation" section seems to be about code documentation in general, not documentation of APIs. It mostly comes from this edit by

Yaris678 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Other information about APIs (non-technical)
This article focuses on what an API is. But I would also like to see additional information - look at this article - http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/31/enterprise-api-programs/ Does anyone have information on what APIs are used for in the industry, how they are used in different companies and institutions, and general statistics about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.41 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Selfref hatnote
I just added a selfref hatnote to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php, but it was reverted by JohnBlackburne, so I'd like to open this up for discussion. I don't think it's that unreasonably to assume some people come here looking for our API. See, for instance the traffic stats for the soft redirect api.php. The point of selfrefs is for the rare cases where users are significantly likely to be looking for internal Wikipedia pages, and I think this is such a case; in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference that the link is, technically speaking, external, since it is a Wikipedia link, just not one located in the /wiki section. — PinkAmpers  &  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  01:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 * My thinking on it was twofold. First it's no place for an external link, of any sort. Those usually go in external links, except for narrow exceptions such as official links in

infoboxes. If it were a link to an actual page it's not an article but a project page and those also should not usually be linked from articles. Those interested in the software WP runs on can use also the links in the sidebar, such as the About Wikipedia link, or the Mediawiki link at the foot of every page, to find out more about the software, including the technical aspects. As for the stats, at 150 a day that's around 2.5% of the 6000 views this page gets a day. Hatnotes are meant for articles the reader is likely to be interested in, which only 2.5% of the views hardly shows, even if it were an article. Finally those who are genuinely interested in reading WP's API documentation should have no trouble finding it themselves.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Application programming interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926235439/http://www.microsoft.com:80/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. --Wikiinger (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

broken link
Hello Admin,

I was reading the content on Application programming interface on this page and i noted a link which is broken. It is a pdf file with anchor text "On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules". I managed to find the originial pdf file.Here is the link of that file. https://web.archive.org/web/20180108050207/http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf. I would request you to link the pdf to this link so that readers will be able to reader the original pdf file.Apart from that i also noticed that this website techved.com has lot of contribution to Application programming interface. Would like to see information from this website.

Example API?
I think adding a small simple API would aid in understanding. For example reading the description nothing jumps out at me that an interface is mostly composed of function calls. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --Marc.2377 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the history of API misses the forest for the trees
I've been programming since 1971, and the current so called "Web API" would not be considered to be an API even up to 2000. Apparently, somebody published a paper that unilaterally redefined the term, and then maybe 10 or twenty years later it pops up on a search because the older stuff is pre-internet and voila, the term API is completely redefined. The history of API as it exists in this article reeks of shoddy scholarship. If the industry for some strange reason sees the need to co-opt a term that doesn't really fit the concept of a set of web endpoints to expose a set of coordinated services [which is what the current term means], then so be it, but the Wikipedia article should at least set the record strait that the current term is not at all what was understood by the originators of the term. Also, AFAICT, there is no reference listed prior to 2000, that in itself should be a giant tip off that the scholarship of this article sucks. I can recall the term being in use at least by 1989, and I suspect it is much older. Just a quick and dirty search of magazines on google books returns references in 1989 used as if it were already a well known and understood term. Again, the scholarship of this article sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkochanowsky (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gkochanowsky, do you have the name of or a link to the paper you say re-defined the term API? Jno.skinner (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Jno.skinner, If you were an actual researcher you wouldn't challenge me for a reference, you'd go find it yourself. Why believe me?
 * Took me two minutes, https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkochanowsky (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN; if you make a claim, you should be the one backing it up with a source. Anyway, the article does mention that the concept of an API did not initially include web APIs, and the article you linked is also mentioned in the history section. Although yes it it would be worth mentioning it if the term "Web API" only started getting used since 2000. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Application programming interface → API – This strikes me as a case where the more commonly recognizable name for the subject is its acronym. The relevant naming convention here is WP:NCACRO, which states: Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. It also states: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. This is the case with APIs. Many of the sources cited within this article introduce APIs with the acronym first before spelling it out, e.g.. See also Google Ngrams. API currently redirects here, so spelling it out is not needed for disambiguation either. I argue that the acronym "API" would be the title most recognizable for the subject, for both lay readers and experts. Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because many language issues regarding the term. In Indonesian and Malay languages, "API" means "fire", so when searching about "API", Primary topic then redirects to the fire instead what naming intend. Renaming Application programming interface to just API would be confusing for people speaking other languages, notably Indonesian and Malay. 36.76.227.254 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "API" means fire in Malay languages so is not necessary to changed to just acronym. 114.125.253.37 (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see why the Indonesian/Malay language term is relevant at all. API already redirects to this article. -- Netoholic @ 10:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE because in this case, most sources do have to explain the acronym (especially when targeted at readers that are not specifically-versed in the specialty jargon). Specifically within computer topics, we have a long history of expanding such acronyms out in titles/lead sentences (graphics processing unit, graphical user interface, Peripheral Component Interconnect). Expanded acronyms like this also provide WP:NATURALDIS. --Netoholic @ 10:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the text of ACRONYMTITLE more strongly favors using the acronym, more akin to USB or HDMI than the examples you cited, where readers might plausibly use the long name in everyday speech (there are a few other computing-related topics I feel are also counter to ACRONYMTITLE, e.g. Cascading Style Sheets). I have no problem with spelling out the acronym in the lead sentence of the article, but in this case it seems quite probable that readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym. Mz7 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference is that USB and HDMI are consumer-level terms of the sort a broad range of people come across quite frequently and are part of general knowledge - such as when purchasing a TV. "API" is quite the opposite - a term used only by programmers and developers primarily - specialist knowledge. -- Netoholic @ 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I agree that this is one of the cases where the expanded title is not descriptive to those that don't know the subject, and it is also much less recognizable. I find this to be different from graphical user interface and similar subjects where the expanded title is descriptive and recognizable. We do however not have that many unexpanded computer-related titles here apart from HTML, XML, PDF and a handful of others. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Thjarkur.  Calidum   15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom, and WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME (and personal experience). As a programmer, I've never once heard anyone call an API an "Application programming interface" when referring to it (or even when explaining it to others in a conversation). If you google "Application programming interface", all of the first page hits use "API" in the title and use it as the main term in the article, with the longer title used as an expansion of the acronym only. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because in my opinion, API means fire in Malay and Indonesian Ianguage and it should be remain like this title. 182.1.20.138 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the English Wikipedia, we do not require disambiguation with non-English terms. To do so would be unworkable because there are many dozens of languages that have words that may resemble an English one. Consider how the word Gift in German means "poison"—if we were forced to disambiguate that, we might switch it to Present, which is of course ambiguous with the English word for "here and now". In my view, opposing arguments like this one should be given little, if any, weight. Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems legit. The abbreviation is far more commonly used than the spelt out title, so it's in the USB, HDMI or NASA territory. — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Web APIs are Remote APIs
The categorization of APIs into Operating System, Remote APIs and Web APIs is confusing for me. None of the cited sources in this section clearly draw this delineation.

At a high level, I would argue APIs break down into two major categories, local and remote. This determination falls depending upon where the client interacts with the interface and the where the interface is enforced.

When an application interacts with local interfaces like a Collections API in a programming language, a hardware API or database driver there is typically enforcement of the interface via code within the client. This can be through an import that contains the underlying interfaces and fails at compile time; or failure at the interpreter in interpreted languages. In the cited example of JDBC, the client is interacting with the interface/API in process, even though that interaction results in a call to a potentially remote system, the interaction with the interface occurs locally where the contract is enforced. The remote call made by the implementation behind the JDBC API may fail due to a bad query, connection information, etc; however the API will still honor its contract given the exceptions specified within it. Using this argument, I would contend that JDBC is a local API.

When using remote APIs clients are not guaranteed to have the interface enforced in process and the behavior of the API is not strictly defined in a programmatic sense in the client. The API's contract is enforced exterior to the client's application code and the behaviors specified on the API interface cannot be enforced programmatically in the client. The client is simply formatting a message in accordance with the programmer's interpretation of information regarding the remote API, passing it over a protocol to a point where the remote API determines adherence to the contract and then (potentially) handles the message. A clear indicator of a Remote API is that it is agnostic to the language of the client, because the interaction occurs outside of the process used by the client to call the API. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmb385 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

API as historical and cultural artifact of immense scope
I'm a drive-by editor, who hits a page once when I first encounter it and find it lacking, and then briskly moves along, likely to never return. I've learned to accept that some portion of my work is quickly reverted if it's not to the taste of the some other editor who soon ambles along.

For the record, my attempted lead extension is preserved at:

 * API

I strongly believe that the API is too important to humanity to leave its description entirely in the hands of CS majors. — MaxEnt 18:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree that the subject is, as you put it, a cultural artifact of immense scope. But the lead now contains statements not sourced or explained in the body, and is probably too long. So I'm afraid much of it won't survive. Jno.skinner (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrap music
I returned to add the following two passages:

Concerning the evolution of OS internals: Gradually user devices such as musical instruments with MIDI interfaces, 1980s-era game controllers, and 1990s-era USB peripherals were increasingly abstracted by operating system device drivers, an important API layer internal to the operating system itself.

I was there at the time. It was always partly the case that the creatives were running the show, placing a lot of uncomfortable proliferation pressure on the dour greybeards.

Final para, concerning the twin purviews:

While "application" in some contexts narrowly refers to the end user application, to software developers each layer of the stack is an "application" with respect to the layer beneath, and so the term "API" arises within the industry wherever two layers or components make contact.

— MaxEnt 19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Data as API
So much for a quick in and out.

The concept of the API is not limited to hardware and code. The Semantic Web as introduced by Tim Berners-Lee in 2001 was a proposal to treat network programming as an API wrapped around the underlying data itself rather than the system's behaviour with a view toward the evolution of intelligent agents as an open innovation entrepreneurship ecosystem. Instead we now have proprietary agents such as Amazon Alexa and Siri which provide natural-language user interfaces rather than programmatic APIs, an entirely different engineering stance toward the human interface boundary.

Maybe at this point I've extended the lead a little too much.

Feel free to fill you boots with the pruning shears if the spirit moves you. — MaxEnt 19:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Update Dispute over copyright protection for APIs section
Supreme court ruled 6-2 in Googles favor for use of Oracle's Java API. Justice Breyer explained, "The declaring code is, if copyrightable at all, further than are most computer programs from the core of copyright," essentially saying that the code used in APIs are more like dictionaries than novels in terms of copyright protection. Along with arguments for Google's favor, we'd like to include some arguments for the opposing side from individuals like Justice Clarence Thomas. Google approached Oracle to negotiate a license for their API, but ultimately were unsuccessful due to trust issues. Google decided to use Oracle's code anyway even though they could not reach an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsGoldJerry (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Overhaul the Web API section.
I firmly believe the Web API section can be written better. There's a few lines I particularly don't like:

"'Web APIs are the defined interfaces through which interactions happen between an enterprise and applications that use its assets, which also is a service-level agreement (SLA) to specify the functional provider and expose the service path or URL for its API users. An API approach is an architectural approach that revolves around providing a program interface to a set of services to different applications serving different types of consumers.'" As APIs become more accessible every day, I think it's important to make the distinction that this interaction does not need to be between an Enterprise and an application. I plan to make this more generalized, such as web server and application. I also don't think the Service-level agreement is necessary here. I think this is getting too technical for a basic definition introduction. I think the whole paragraph needs to be either removed or reworded to be a lot more inclusive to those without a tech background.

"'When used in the context of web development... '"

I think this line can be removed or changed, I think many people understand the context since we're in the "Web API" section.

Web APIs have seen a lot of movement in even the past couple of years. I think there is a lot of potential in this section that's not being used. I think people are going to seek out this section a lot more in coming years, so it's important to make it rich and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berg2807 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Expand Design Section
In the Design section, we only have a brief description of the general idea of what an applicable API should be like and how it may ease the users' work. However, in terms of design, some detailed information can still be included here. I believe this section can be improved by adding more content about design patterns and principles to make this part more concrete and understandable.--TheaiasR (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Expand on the Security section.
Hey everyone, I added a security section to this page because I truly believe it's an important topic to have on this page. I added a little bit of content, but I think this is a topic with a lot of potential. I'd love to see someone improve on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berg2807 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Off To a Bad Start
"An application programming interface (API) is a way for two or more computer programs to communicate with each other."

nope - an API does not need two or more computers! it's just an interface for an application program. this application need not execute on a different computer. it can be on the same computer, making use of some library on the same computer.

you should fix that. people already quote this erroneous statement e.g. in tutorials in youtube. 90.146.100.207 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 * it says "two or more computer programs" not "two or more computers" Jno.skinner (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur. An API is not for computers, it's for developers. Computers (or computer programs) communicate with each other via protocols, not APIs. An API is a description of a software module, commonly published as header file. It is a way for two or more developers to communicate with each other.

"API (redirects and miscellaneous)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=API_(redirects_and_miscellaneous)&redirect=no API (redirects and miscellaneous)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What is Meant by "There are APIs for programming languages"?
I'm a little bit confused by this verbiage. To my understanding, an API is something that you would implement in a language, not for a language, unless I'm mistaken. I tried looking for a language that has an internal API, but I couldn't find anything. Of course, there are internal APIs for frameworks or platforms, like .NET or Java, respectively, but I've never seen an API for a language specifically. Is this a mistake on the page or a misunderstanding on my part?

I'm new to Wikipedia, I wanted to link the passage to the talk page, but I couldn't find a way to. Please forgive me if I made any mistakes. Zackarhino (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:API


text:
Wikipedia:Awareness statistics

This page is part of the Statistics family of pages. It attempts to measure the growth in public awareness of Wikipedia. Please see Modelling Wikipedia's growth for speculation on the trends in these statistics.

It is interesting to compare the following graphs with the graphs in Size of Wikipedia.

Weekly and daily rankings
Alexa traffic ranking to main English Wikipedia site – lower is better, 1 is theoretically the most popular site on the Internet. Alexa users are a self-selecting group, so they do not necessarily represent all Internet users in the correct proportions.

For comparison purposes, a snapshot of the one-week top 10 sites, as ranked by Alexa on 2 March 2007, together with their corresponding one-week reach and page views figures, was as follows: Reach  P.Views     R/W    V/W 1    yahoo.com       26.8      6.0       4.25   13.3 2    msn.com         30.1      3.6       4.78    8.0 3    google.com      25.1      2.3       3.98    5.1 4    youtube.com      8.9      1.6       1.41    3.6 5    myspace.com      4.4      2.4       0.70    5.3 6    live.com        14.6      0.63      2.32    1.3 7    baidu.com        6.1      1.2       0.97    2.7 8    qq.com           5.3      0.73      0.84    1.6 9    orkut.com        2.6      1.4       0.41    3.1 10    wikipedia.org    6.3      0.45      1       1 11    yahoo.co.jp      2.8      0.93      0.44    2.1 Where reach and views figures are percents, and R/W and V/W are the reach and views figures, normalized so that that of Wikipedia = 1. Note that Alexa does not rank by reach or views alone: their rank criterion is based on a combination of the two.

Use this link to update this table. '''Note that the date in general differs by one day from "today" – the correct date is given in the lower right corner under the graph. However, for a short time most days the gap is two days, as the statistics are usually updated before the graphs.'''  22 October 2002, 9,653 27 October 2002, 9,440 3 November 2002, 9,047 13 November 2002, 8,356 22 November 2002, 7,922 1 December 2002, 7,543 10 January 2003, 14,882 (major slip) 1 February 2003, 7,897 (recovering again) 7 February 2003, 6,799 (still recovering) 15 February 2003, 5,406 23 February 2003, 5,228 4 March 2003,   7,328 11 March 2003,   5,713 13 March 2003,   4,735  (continuing rise, perhaps helped by boost in Google ranking) 15 March 2003,   3,662 17 March 2003,   3,342 28 March 2003,   3,653 6 April 2003,   3,072 12 April 2003,   3,444 16 April 2003,   3,785 28 April 2003,   3,422 6 May 2003,     3,832 18 May 2003,     3,212 22 May 2003,     2,965 29 May 2003,     2,509  (possibly driven by Earthlink E-mail newsletter publicity) 16 June 2003,    3,289 23 June 2003,    3,187 2 July 2003,    2,676 13 July 2003,    2,033 17 July 2003,    2,045 8 August 2003,  1,406 2 October 2003,   941 21 October 2003, 1,038 29 October 2003, 1,189  (recent reduction in rank probably due to server problems) 3 November 2003, 1,168 13 November 2003,  906  (performance is better after load-balancing installed) 25 November 2003,  934  (ranking continues to be around 1000 +/- 100) 3 December 2003,  950  (but new server has been installed; so expect better ranking soon?) 6 December 2003,  887 8 December 2003,  838 12 December 2003,  828 15 December 2003,  751* 1 January 2004, 1,114  (a big drop back after Christmas and two major server outages) 12 January 2004,   851  (even when running slowly on backup hardware!) 24 January 2004,   778 28 January 2004,   742* 1 February 2004,  874 14 February 2004,  779 20 February 2004,  816 27 February 2004,  712* 3 March 2004,     723 8 March 2004,     678* 14 March 2004,     654* 20 March 2004,     649* 21 March 2004,     643* 25 March 2004,     634* 30 March 2004,     619* 2 April 2004,     608* 9 April 2004,     646 16 April 2004,     605* 22 April 2004,     607 23 April 2004,     596* 30 April 2004,     661 1 May 2004,       686  (hardware problems are causing a drop in traffic) 10 May 2004,       676  (continued poor traffic) 12 May 2004,       628  (making a comeback) 13 May 2004,       617 14 May 2004,       582 16 May 2004,       556* 19 May 2004,       563 20 May 2004,       558 24 May 2004,       598 27 May 2004,       619 1 June 2004,      609 2 June 2004,      538* 6 June 2004,      567 8 June 2004,      591 16 June 2004,      694 22 June 2004,      709 23 June 2004,      687 24 June 2004,      658 29 June 2004,      653 4 July 2004,      671 12 July 2004,      654 16 July 2004,      616 19 July 2004,      600 22 July 2004,      570 25 July 2004,      531 27 July 2004,      503* 28 July 2004,      487* 31 July 2004,      499 1 August 2004,    536  (taking odd nosedive) 4 August 2004,    583 13 August 2004,    647  (dropping back again) 23 August 2004,    595 31 August 2004,    506  (after adding 4 new servers) 2 September 2004, 482* 3 September 2004, 475* 4 September 2004, 463* 8 September 2004, 458* 9 September 2004, 450* 10 September 2004, 446* 12 September 2004, 424* 14 September 2004, 427 15 September 2004, 433 20 September 2004, 457 21 September 2004, 451 22 September 2004, 437 23 September 2004, 437 24 September 2004, 429 25 September 2004, 423* 26 September 2004, 419* 27 September 2004, 417* 29 September 2004, 414* 30 September 2004, 409* October 2004 spike in activity probably caused by 2004 U.S. presidential election 4 October 2004,   398*  (top 400) 5 October 2004,   383*  (daily: 290*) 6 October 2004,   361* 7 October 2004,   323*  (daily: 250*) 8 October 2004,   303* 9 October 2004,   290*  (top 300) 11 October 2004,   293 12 October 2004,   288* 13 October 2004,   280*  (daily: 231*) 14 October 2004,   271*  (daily: 218*) 15 October 2004,   254*  (daily: 197*) 16 October 2004,   251* 17 October 2004,   243* 18 October 2004,   239* 19 October 2004,   237* 20 October 2004,   231* 21 October 2004,   233 22 October 2004,   238 23 October 2004,   237 25 October 2004,   226* 26 October 2004,   222* 27 October 2004,   221* 31 October 2004,   235 9 November 2004,  238 12 November 2004,  227 16 November 2004,  222 17 November 2004,  217* 18 November 2004,  210* (daily: 172*) 19 November 2004,  208* 20 November 2004,  196* (top 200, daily: 158*) 21 November 2004,  183* 22 November 2004,  175* 23 November 2004,  167* (daily: 152*) 24 November 2004,  171 25 November 2004,  168 29 November 2004,  178 5 December 2004,  174 10 December 2004,  166* (daily: 153) 22 December 2004,  191  (daily: 161) 29 December 2004,  204  (daily: 159) January 2005 spike in activity probably caused by 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 1 January 2005,   187  (daily: 143*) 2 January 2005,   165* 3 January 2005,   156* (daily: 140*) 4 January 2005,   147* (daily: 132*) 6 January 2005,   143* (daily: 130*) 13 January 2005,   141* 18 January 2005,   168  (daily: 192) - after running slowly for several days 19 January 2005,   163  (daily: 122*) - still running slowly 21 January 2005,   139* (daily: 137) 22 January 2005,   136* (daily: 144) 24 January 2005,   132* (daily: 115*) 29 January 2005,   140  (daily: 146) 7 February 2005,  141  (daily: 144) 12 February 2005,  137  (daily: 120) 15 February 2005,  122* (daily: 118) 19 February 2005,  119* (daily: 106*) 21 February 2005,  118* (daily: 135) 23 February 2005,  115* (daily: 124) 27 February 2005,  123  (daily: 139) recovering after big server crash 1 March 2005,     128  (daily: 112) still recovering 2 March 2005,     123  (daily: 110) 6 March 2005,     115  (daily: 128) 8 March 2005,     114* (daily: 105*) 19 March 2005,     110* (daily: 134) 22 March 2005,     110  (daily: 104*) 23 March 2005,     109* (daily: 95*) first daily rank in the top 100 24 March 2005,     104* (daily: 95) 26 March 2005,     113  (daily: 105) 30 March 2005,     101* (daily: 89*) first daily rank in top 90 April 2005 spike in activity probably caused by death of Pope John Paul II 2 April 2005,      97* (daily: 94) first weekly rank in top 100 3 April 2005,      89* (daily: 77*) rising ever faster! 4 April 2005,      85* (daily: 77) 6 April 2005,      82* (daily: 77) 7 April 2005,      80* (daily: 77) 8 April 2005,      80  (daily: 74*) 12 April 2005,      77* (daily: 66*) 19 April 2005,      76* (daily: 56*) first daily rank in top 60 20 April 2005,      73* (daily: 57) 21 April 2005,      72* (daily: 66) 24 April 2005,      64* (daily: 82) 1 May  2005,       79  (daily: 89) 3 May  2005,       77  (daily: 66) 6 May  2005,       69  (daily: 60) 10 May  2005,       65  (daily: 64) 23 May  2005,       67  (daily: 63) 1 June 2005,       74  (daily: 68) 10 June 2005,       70  (daily: 64) 12 June 2005,       71  (daily: 60) ''Mid-June 2005 spike in activity probably caused by increased publicity from the Los Angeles Times. Comment: this is disputed; only a quarter of traffic comes from the U.S. and there wasn't much of a spike anyway.'' 18 June 2005,       66  (daily: 63) 19 June 2005,       63* (daily: 59) 20 June 2005,       62* (daily: 62) 22 June 2005,       62  (daily: 61) 26 June 2005,       61* (daily: 55*) 28 June 2005,       59* (daily: 56) first weekly rank in top 60 29 June 2005,       58* (daily: 58) 30 June 2005,       58  (daily: 53*) 3 July 2005,       57* (daily: 52*) 4 July 2005,       55* (daily: 54) 6 July 2005,       53* (daily: 50*) first daily rank in top 50 7 July 2005,       51* (daily: 51) 9 July 2005,       52  (daily: 52) 10 July 2005,       52  (daily: 48*) 11 July 2005,       51  (daily: 50) 12 July 2005,       51  (daily: 54) 14 July 2005,       52  (daily: 55) 15 July 2005,       51  (daily: 52) 17 July 2005,       52  (daily: 46*) 18 July 2005,       52  (daily: 50) 19 July 2005,       52  (daily: 48) 21 July 2005,       50* (daily: 50) first weekly rank in the top 50 22 July 2005,       50  (daily: 53) 23 July 2005,       50  (daily: 54) 24 July 2005,       50  (daily: 50) 25 July 2005,       50  (daily: 47) 26 July 2005,       51  (daily: 50) 27 July 2005,       51  (daily: 51) 29 July 2005,       51  (daily: 53) 31 July 2005,       51  (daily: 48) 1 August 2005,     51  (daily: 50) 6 August 2005,     50  (daily: 52) 8 August 2005,     51  (daily: 51) 9 August 2005,     50  (daily: 49) 11 August 2005,     49* (daily: 47) 13 August 2005,     48* (daily: 51) 15 August 2005,     49  (daily: 48) 17 August 2005,     48  (daily: 43*) 18 August 2005,     47* (daily: 41*) 19 August 2005,     46* (daily: 43) 22 August 2005,     44* (daily: 43) 23 August 2005,     43* (daily: 44) 24 August 2005,     43  (daily: 45) 1 September 2005,  46  (daily: 42) 2 September 2005,  44  (daily: 42) 4 September 2005,  42* (daily: 40*) first daily rank in the top 40 5 September 2005,  41* (daily: 39*) 6 September 2005,  40* (daily: 35*) first weekly rank in the top 40 8 September 2005,  39* (daily: 37) 11 September 2005,  40  (daily: 33*) 17 September 2005,  38* (daily: 44) 26 September 2005,  37* (daily: 44) 29 September 2005,  43  (daily: 35) 30 September 2005,  40  (daily: 38) 1 October 2005,    39  (daily: 39) 2 October 2005,    38  (daily: 34) 4 October 2005,    37  (daily: 31*) 10 October 2005,    35* (daily: 38) 16 October 2005,    35  (daily: 34) 20 October 2005,    34* (daily: 36) 26 October 2005,    34  (daily: 35) 2 November 2005,   35  (daily: 35) 6 November 2005,   34  (daily: 32) 13 November 2005,   34  (daily: 33) 25 November 2005,   35  (daily: 39) 29 November 2005,   33* (daily: 35) John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy'' 4 December 2005,   34  (daily: 30*) first daily rank in the top 30 6 December 2005,   33  (daily: 29*) 9 December 2005,   31* (daily: 29) 10 December 2005,   30* (daily: 30) first weekly rank in the top 30 11 December 2005,   30  (daily: 27*) 12 December 2005,   29* (daily: 28) 16 December 2005,   28* (daily: 28) 18 December 2005,   28  (daily: 23*) 19 December 2005,   27* (daily: 27) 22 December 2005,   27  (daily: 28) 25 December 2005,   28  (daily: 24) 29 December 2005,   28  (daily: 25) 2 January 2006,    26* (daily: 20*) first daily ranking in the top 20 3 January 2006,    24* (daily: 21) 4 January 2006,    22* (daily: 20) 7 January 2006,    20* (daily: 21) first weekly rank in the top 20 8 January 2006,    19* (daily: 19*) 10 January 2006,    20  (daily: 20) 17 January 2006,    19  (daily: 20) 18 January 2006,    19  (daily: 18*) 21 January 2006,    19  (daily: 19) 22 January 2006,    18* (daily: 16*) 25 January 2006,    18  (daily: 18) 27 January 2006,    17* (daily: 17) Marty Meehan Wikipedia controversy - mainly affects U.S. traffic, which is only a quarter of the total. It is probable that the Chinese New Year was a much more important cause of the late January spike.'' 28 January 2006,    17  (daily: 15*) first daily ranking in the top 15 29 January 2006,    17  (daily: 13*) Wikipedia spiked during the Chinese New Year season because the major Chinese sites all took a plunge. Therefore, this ranking may not be beaten for a while. 31 January 2006,    15* (daily: 14) first weekly rank in the top 15 1 February 2006,   15  (daily: 16) 6 February 2006,   18  (daily: 18) 15 February 2006,   18  (daily: 19) 25 February 2006,   18  (daily: 17) 5 March 2006,      18  (daily: 12*) This one day spike was caused by a sharp one day fall in the rankings of the major Chinese-language sites. Reason not known. 7 March 2006,      17  (daily: 17) 12 March 2006,      17  (daily: 16) 30 March 2006,      16  (daily: 17) 6 April 2006,      16  (daily: 17) 12 April 2006,      16  (daily: 15) First top 15 daily ranking not caused by China-related special circumstances. 25 April 2006,      17  (daily: 17) It's gone down, even though 7-day average reach has set new records 10 days in a row. 1 May 2006,        17  (daily: 14) This day was a public holiday in China. 22 May 2006,        17  (daily: 17) 3 June 2006,       17  (daily: 18) 8 June 2006,       16  (daily: 16) 29 June 2006,       16  (daily: 17) 28 July 2006,       16  (daily: 16) 13 August 2006,     16  (daily: 14) 19 August 2006,     15  (daily: 14) First top 15 weekly ranking not caused by China-related special events. 20 August 2006,     15  (daily: 13) 29 August 2006,     15  (daily: 15) 17 September 2006,  15  (daily: 13) 27 September 2006,  15  (daily: 13) 3 October 2006,    13* (daily: 12) 4 October 2006,    13  (daily: 11*) 12 October 2006,    12* (daily: 13) 13 October 2006,    12  (daily: 11) 17 October 2006,    12  (daily: 11) 8 November 2006,   12  (daily: 11) 12 November 2006,   12  (daily: 10*) First daily ranking in the top 10. 18 November 2006,   12  (daily: 13) 11 December 2006,   12  (daily: 10) 12 December 2006,   11* (daily: 11) 22 December 2006,   12  (daily: 12) 31 December 2006,   12  (daily: 12) 3 January 2007,    11  (daily: 9*) 7 January 2007,    10* (daily: 9)  First weekly ranking in the top 10. 10 February 2007,   11  (daily: 11) 15 February 2007,   10  (daily: 10) 19 February 2007,   11  (daily: 8*) Chinese New Year spike 24 February 2007,    9* (daily: 11) 24 March 2007,       9  (daily: 10) 16 April 2007,       9  (daily: 9) 7 May 2007,         9  (daily: 9) 29 May 2007,         9  (daily: 8) 29 July 2007,        8* (daily: 8) 4 September 2007,   8  (daily: 8) 21 September 2007,   8  (daily: 8) 16 December 2007,    9  (daily: 9) 16 March 2008,       9  (daily: 9) 14 April 2008,       7* (daily: 8) Alexa has recalculated rankings; leap frogged Hi5 and Facebook 26 May 2008,         8  (daily: 8) 29 September 2008,   8  (daily: 8) 20 February 2009,    7  (daily: 7*) 25 September 2009    6* (daily: 6*) 17 May 2010,         6  (daily: 7) 11 October 2011,     6  (daily: 6)

Alexa Global Top 500 (3 month ranking)

In October 2004, Wikipedia appeared in Alexa's list of the Global Top 500 web sites. Note: the Alexa 3 month ranking is based on a three-month moving average, so it will smooth out both temporary peaks and temporary troughs in performance. Now Wikipedia is in the top 20; rival sites differ considerably in popularity and so Wikipedia's ranking is much more stable than in the past.

12 October 2004,   #468 28 October 2004,   #403 01 November 2004,  #393 09 November 2004,  #378 15 November 2004,  #329 24 November 2004,  #293 10 December 2004,  #255 22 December 2004,  #221 29 December 2004,  #209 04 January 2005,   #200 (First time in global top 200) 13 January 2005,   #188 29 January 2005,   #175 07 February 2005,  #167 12 February 2005,  #163 27 February 2005,  #146 10 March 2005,     #136 19 March 2005,     #132 30 March 2005,     #124 9 April 2005,     #119 19 April 2005,     #108 23 April 2005,     #103 1 May  2005,      #100 (First time in global top 100) 12 May  2005,       #94 23 May  2005,       #88 8 June 2005,       #81 18 June 2005,       #78 26 June 2005,       #69 8 July 2005,       #65 18 July 2005,       #60 25 July 2005,       #58 6 August 2005,     #57 23 August 2005,     #55 2 September 2005,  #53 5 September 2005,  #50 (First time in global top 50) 24 September 2005,  #49 2 October 2005,    #47 10 October 2005,    #46 26 October 2005,    #41 2 November 2005,   #38 29 November 2005,   #36 2 December 2005,   #35 16 December 2005,   #34 26 December 2005,   #33 1 January 2006,    #32 5 January 2006,    #31 12 January 2006,    #30 1 February 2006,   #28 7 February 2006,   #23 15 February 2006,   #22 3 March 2006,      #20 (First time in global top 20) 8 March 2006,      #19 12 March 2006,      #18 29 March 2006,      #17 13 May 2006,        #16 29 June 2006,       #17 (Overtaken by YouTube.com) 16 July 2006,       #16 23 July 2006,       #17 14 August 2006,     #16 17 September 2006,  #17 (Overtaken by Orkut.com) 13 October 2006,    #15 7 November 2006,   #14 15 November 2006,   #13 6 December 2006,   #12 27 February 2007,   #11 26 March 2007,      #10 (First time in global top 10) 8 April 2007,      #11 (Battle with yahoo.co.jp) 26 April 2007,      #10 18 May 2007,         #9 22 May 2007,        #10 (Battle with qq.com) 29 May 2007,         #9 20 October 2007,     #8 23 January 2008,     #9 16 March 2008,       #9 14 April 2008,       #7 (Alexa revise rankings) 29 September 2008,   #8 20 February 2009,    #7 25 September 2009    #6 (msn.com overtaken) 17 May 2010          #6

Alexa reach per million measurement for wikipedia.org
Alexa reach per million viewers: (reach figures can be found at the bottom of the Alexa page cited above ). The early part of this list shows only one-week average, but from December 2004 the daily figures are also shown. Another way to look at these figures is in percentage terms. When Wikipedia's reach per million hit 10,000 in June 2005 that meant that 1% of internet users with the Alexa toolbar were visiting Wikipedia each day. In September 2006 this figure reached 50,000 or 5%. The percentage of internet users who visit Wikipedia in a longer period such as a week or a month will be higher than that, as further internet users visit it each day, but it cannot be calculated from the information published by Alexa.

7 February 2003,     125 15 February 2003,     155* 23 February 2003,     125 15 March 2003,        210* 28 March 2003,        265* 12 April 2003,        285* 16 April 2003,        270 6 May 2003,         360* 18 May 2003,         300 29 May 2003,          330 16 June 2003,         330 2 July 2003,         420* 13 July 2003,         530* 17 July 2003,         530 8 August 2003,       665* 2 October 2003,      905* 21 October 2003,      990* 3 November 2003,     880 13 November 2003,     910 25 November 2003,     950 3 December 2003,     945 6 December 2003,   1,010* 8 December 2003,   1,050* 12 December 2003,   1,050 15 December 2003,   1,070* 1 January 2004,      905 12 January 2004,    1,105* 24 January 2004,    1,285* 28 January 2004,    1,390* 1 February 2004,   1,290 14 February 2004,   1,390 20 February 2004,   1,340 27 February 2004,   1,380 3 March 2004,      1,345 8 March 2004,      1,440* 14 March 2004,      1,465 20 March 2004,      1,515* 21 March 2004,      1,565 30 March 2004,      1,630* 2 April 2004,      1,625 16 April 2004,      1,740* 22 April 2004,      2,000* 23 April 2004,      1,845 1 May 2004,        1,700, (hardware problems affecting traffic) 10 May 2004,        1,660, (problems continue, new hardware is on order) 12 May 2004,        1,695 13 May 2004,        1,685 16 May 2004,        1,840 19 May 2004,        1,885 20 May 2004,        1,950 27 May 2004,        1,770 1 June 2004,       1,845 8 June 2004,       1,940 16 June 2004,       1,585 22 June 2004,       1,535 23 June 2004,       1,560 24 June 2004,       1,625 29 June 2004,       1,650 19 July 2004,       1,755 22 July 2004,       1,910, (Making a comeback) 25 July 2004,       2,020* 27 July 2004,       2,105* 28 July 2004,       2,115* 31 July 2004,       2,030 4 August 2004,     1,735 13 August 2004,     1,505, (a big drop) 23 August 2004,     1,515 31 August 2004,     1,870, (after installing 4 new servers) 2 September 2004,  1,945 9 September 2004,  1,930 10 September 2004,  1,895 12 September 2004,  1,950 14 September 2004,  1,935 15 September 2004,  1,880 17 September 2004,  1,835 21 September 2004,  1,710 22 September 2004,  1,715 23 September 2004,  1,730 24 September 2004,  1,735 25 September 2004,  1,760 26 September 2004,  1,770 27 September 2004,  1,770 30 September 2004,  1,740 04 October 2004,    2,040 05 October 2004,    2,235* 06 October 2004,    2,405* 07 October 2004,    2,600* 08 October 2004,    2,810* 09 October 2004,    2,985* 11 October 2004,    2,950 12 October 2004,    2,915 13 October 2004,    2,910 14 October 2004,    2,935 15 October 2004,    3,000* 16 October 2004,    3,250* 18 October 2004,    3,160 19 October 2004,    3,260* 20 October 2004,    3,320* 21 October 2004,    3,365* 23 October 2004,    3,425* 26 October 2004,    3,615* 31 October 2004,    3,315 19 November 2004,   3,570 20 November 2004,   3,655* 22 November 2004,   3,970* 23 November 2004,   4,045* 25 November 2004,   4,025 5 December 2004,   4,200* 10 December 2004,   4,065 22 December 2004,   3,840 29 December 2004,   3,570  (daily:  4,300) 01 January 2005,    3,940  (daily:  4,700) 03 January 2005,    4,535* (daily:  5,300) 04 January 2005,    4,710* (daily:  5,450*) 06 January 2005,    4,905* (daily:  5,300) 19 January 2005,    4,735  (daily:  5,400) 24 January 2005,    4,955* (daily:  5,450) 1 February 2005,   4,825  (daily:  5,150) 4 February 2005,   4,980* (daily:  5,000) 8 February 2005,   4,955  (daily:  5,600*) 11 February 2005,   5,185* (daily:  5,600) 12 February 2005,   5,245* (daily:  4,900) 15 February 2005,   5,340* (daily:  5,500) 19 February 2005,   5,385* (daily:  5,800*) 1 March 2005,      4,950  (daily:  5,450), recovering from server crash 19 March 2005,      5,365  (daily:  4,700) 22 March 2005,      5,455* (daily:  5,900*) 23 March 2005,      5,515* (daily:  6,100*) 30 March 2005,      5,825* (daily:  6,400*) 2 April 2005,      6,125* (daily:  6,300) 3 April 2005,      6,820* (daily:  7,700*) 4 April 2005,      6,995* (daily:  7,650) 5 April 2005,      7,080* (daily:  7,400) 6 April 2005,      7,280* (daily:  7,750*) 8 April 2005,      7,600* (daily:  8,100*) 12 April 2005,      7,900* (daily:  8,300*) 19 April 2005,      7,900  (daily:  9,850*) 20 April 2005,      8,100* (daily:  9,150) 21 April 2005,      8,200* (daily:  8,300) 24 April 2005,      7,900  (daily:  4,750) 1 May  2005,       7,300  (daily:  4,150) 6 May  2005,       8,150  (daily:  9,350) 11 May  2005,       8,500* (daily:  8,500) 23 May  2005,       8,500  (daily:  8,900) 2 June 2005,       8,400  (daily:  8,650) 11 June 2005,       8,100  (daily:  7,700), dropping 12 June 2005,       8,100  (daily:  8,800), going up again 18 June 2005,       8,650* (daily:  7,850) 19 June 2005,       8,650  (daily:  8,900) 20 June 2005,       8,750* (daily:  9,450) 22 June 2005,       8,800* (daily:  8,950) 26 June 2005,       9,050* (daily: 10,300*), first daily reach over 10,000 28 June 2005,       9,450* (daily: 10,450*) 29 June 2005,       9,650* (daily: 10,350) 30 June 2005,       9,900* (daily: 10,700*), 12.5% increase in 8 days 3 July 2005,      10,450* (daily: 10,900*), first weekly average reach over 10,000 4 July 2005,      10,550* (daily: 11,400*) 8 July 2005,      11,300* (daily: 10,900) 9 July 2005,      11,350* (daily: 10,250) 10 July 2005,      11,400* (daily: 11,300) 11 July 2005,      11,500* (daily: 12,100*) 12 July 2005,      11,500  (daily: 11,500) 14 July 2005,      11,350  (daily: 11,550) 15 July 2005,      11,400  (daily: 11,100) 17 July 2005,      11,500* (daily: 12,000) 18 July 2005,      11,500  (daily: 12,100) 19 July 2005,      11,650* (daily: 13,100*) 21 July 2005,      11,750* (daily: 11,850) 22 July 2005,      11,750  (daily: 11,050) 23 July 2005,      11,800* (daily: 10,550) 24 July 2005,      11,800  (daily: 11,900) 25 July 2005,      12,050* (daily: 13,900*) 26 July 2005,      11,900  (daily: 12,200) 27 July 2005,      11,850  (daily: 11,550) 29 July 2005,      11,850  (daily: 11,200) 31 July 2005,      11,750  (daily: 11,450) 1 August 2005,    11,400  (daily: 11,500) 6 August 2005,    11,550  (daily: 10,850) 8 August 2005,    11,750  (daily: 12,750) 9 August 2005,    11,850  (daily: 13,000) 11 August 2005,    12,200* (daily: 13,000) 13 August 2005,    12,350* (daily: 11,600) 15 August 2005,    12,500* (daily: 13,050) 17 August 2005,    12,450  (daily: 12,800) 18 August 2005,    12,450  (daily: 13,150) 19 August 2005,    12,500  (daily: 12,400) 22 August 2005,    12,500  (daily: 13,100) 23 August 2005,    12,500  (daily: 12,950) 24 August 2005,    12,550* (daily: 13,150) 1 September 2005, 12,750* (daily: 13,400) 2 September 2005, 12,850* (daily: 12,550) 4 September 2005, 13,100* (daily: 13,100) 5 September 2005, 13,200* (daily: 13,650) 6 September 2005, 13,300* (daily: 14,500*) 8 September 2005, 13,450* (daily: 14,850*) 11 September 2005, 14,100* (daily: 15,000*) 26 September 2005, 11,950  (daily: 14,600) 29 September 2005, 12,350  (daily: 15,350*) 1 October 2005,   13,450  (daily: 13,700) 2 October 2005,   14,450* (daily: 15,750*) 4 October 2005,   15,000* (daily: 17,650*) 10 October 2005,   15,400* (daily: 15,800) 16 October 2005,   15,700* (daily: 15,850) 26 October 2005,   16,500* (daily: 16,950) 3 November 2005,  16,450  (daily: 16,900) 6 November 2005,  16,750* (daily: 18,050*) 13 November 2005,  17,150* (daily: 17,700) 25 November 2005,  16,450  (daily: 15,400) 27 November 2005,  16,450  (daily: 18,050) 4 December 2005,  16,950  (daily: 18,250*) 6 December 2005,  17,200* (daily: 18,900*) 8 December 2005,  17,750* (daily: 19,200*) 10 December 2005,  18,400* (daily: 17,900) 11 December 2005,  18,750* (daily: 20,750*)  first daily reach over 20,000 12 December 2005,  19,150* (daily: 20,900*) 13 December 2005,  19,500* (daily: 21,300*) 14 December 2005,  19,700* (daily: 20,100) 15 December 2005,  19,900* (daily: 20,500) 16 December 2005,  20,050* (daily: 19,000)  first weekly average reach over 20,000 17 December 2005,  20,150* (daily: 18,450) 18 December 2005,  20,300* (daily: 21,750*) 19 December 2005,  20,400* (daily: 21,850*) 20 December 2005,  20,450* (daily: 21,400) 21 December 2005,  20,600* (daily: 21,250) 22 December 2005,  20,600  (daily: 20,350) 24 December 2005,  20,550  (daily: 18,250) 25 December 2005,  20,050  (daily: 18,300) 29 December 2005,  19,700  (daily: 22,000*}  1 January 2006,    20,750* (daily: 22,050*)  2 January 2006,    21,950* (daily: 26,450*)  3 January 2006,    22,800* (daily: 26,900*)  4 January 2006,    23,600* (daily: 26,850)  5 January 2006,    24,200* (daily: 26,300)  7 January 2006,    25,150* (daily: 25,550)  8 January 2006,    26,300* (daily: 27,500*)  9 January 2006,    26,450* (daily: 27,400) 10 January 2006,    26,550* (daily: 27,800*) 11 January 2006,    26,800* (daily: 28,400*) 13 January 2006,    27,050* (daily: 27,000) 17 January 2006,    26,300  (daily: 26,950) 18 January 2006,    26,350  (daily: 29,000*) 21 January 2006,    27,450* (daily: 26,750) 22 January 2006,    28,300* (daily: 30,550*)  first daily reach over 30,000 23 January 2006,    28,550* (daily: 29,650) 24 January 2006,    29,000* (daily: 30,150) 25 January 2006,    29,200* (daily: 30,200) 26 January 2006,    29,650* (daily: 31,750*) 27 January 2006,   30,150* (daily: 31,900*)  first weekly average reach over 30,000 28 January 2006,   30,550* (daily: 29,750) 29 January 2006,   31,250* {daily: 35,300*) 30 January 2006,    32,200* {daily: 36,250*) 31 January 2006,   32,950* {daily: 35,550) 1 February 2006,    33,500* (daily: 33,900) 2 February 2006,    33,950* (daily: 34,750) 8 February 2006,    32,800  (daily: 32,150) 15 February 2006,   32,300  (daily: 32,300) 19 February 2006,   31,800  (daily: 31,250) 25 February 2006,   31,050  (daily: 28,550)  5 March 2006,      31,900  (daily: 37,150*)  7 March 2006,      32,450  (daily: 33,650) 12 March 2006,      33,450  (daily: 35,750) 14 March 2006,      34,050* (daily: 36,200) 15 March 2006,      34,450* (daily: 36,650) 17 March 2006,      34,850* (daily: 34,000) 18 March 2006,      35,050* (daily: 32,500) 19 March 2006,      35,250* (daily: 37,350*) 20 March 2006,      35,350* (daily: 36,000) 30 March 2006,      34,150  (daily: 34,550)  6 April 2006,      34,100  (daily: 34,250) 12 April 2006,      34,400  (daily: 35,900) 16 April 2006,      35,500* (daily: 37,300) 17 April 2006,      35,650* (daily: 37,550*) 18 April 2006,     36,050* (daily: 39,000*) 19 April 2006,     36,200* (daily: 37,000) 20 April 2006,     36,700* (daily: 38,850) 21 April 2006,     37,300* (daily: 36,750) 22 April 2006,     37,350* (daily: 35,100) 23 April 2006,     37,600* (daily: 39,200*) 24 April 2006,     37,900* (daily: 39,600*) 25 April 2006,     38,050* (daily: 39,900*) 26 April 2006,     38,450* (daily: 39,700) 1 May 2006,       38,350  (daily: 44,000*)  first daily reach over 40,000. This day was a public holiday in China. 2 May 2006,       38,650* (daily: 41,900) 3 May 2006,       38,800* (daily: 40,900) 4 May 2006,       39,450* (daily: 43,250) 5 May 2006,       40,100* (daily: 41,400)   first weekly average reach over 40,000 7 May 2006,       40,900* (daily: 39,300) 22 May 2006,       40,200  (daily: 42,850) 3 June 2006,      40,300  (daily: 36,550) 8 June 2006,      41,350* (daily: 43,900) 9 June 2006,      41,600* (daily: 39,950) 10 June 2006,      41,700* (daily: 37,450) 11 June 2006,      41,850* (daily: 41,950) 12 June 2006,      42,000* (daily: 43,850) 9 July 2006,      40,300  (daily: 40,950) 12 July 2006,      41,450  (daily: 44,150*) 24 July 2006,      42,150* (daily: 45,350*) 26 July 2006,      42,200* (daily: 42,850) 28 July 2006,      42,300* (daily: 42,000) 31 July 2006,      42,000  (daily: 45,350*) 2 August 2006,    42,450* (daily: 45,000) 3 August 2006,    42,850* (daily: 44,750) 8 August 2006,    40,800  (daily: 47,550*) 13 August 2006,    43,800* (daily: 45,400) 14 August 2006,    45,250* (daily: 48,050*) 15 August 2006,    45,250* (daily: 47,550) 20 August 2006,    45,150  (daily: 48,150*) 22 August 2006,    44,250  (daily: 48,650*) 23 August 2006,    44,500  (daily: 49,300*) 25 August 2006,    46,150* (daily: 45,200) 26 August 2006,    46,250* (daily: 43,500) 27 August 2006,    46,300* (daily: 48,750) 28 August 2006,    47,750* (daily: 50,550*)  first daily reach over 50,000 29 August 2006,    47,900* (daily: 49,650) 30 August 2006,    48,000* (daily: 50,200) 31 August 2006,    48,150* (daily: 49,350) 1 September 2006, 48,400* (daily: 46,800) 6 September 2006, 45,250  (daily: 51,300*) 10 September 2006, 48,850* (daily: 51,800*) 11 September 2006, 50,750* (daily: 54,700*) first weekly average reach over 50,000 14 September 2006, 51,050* (daily: 51,850) 17 September 2006, 51,200* (daily: 52,650) 19 September 2006, 51,350* (daily: 54,400) 26 September 2006, 51,500* (daily: 56,500*) 27 September 2006, 52,000* (daily: 55,250) 3 October 2006,   49,750  (daily: 59,200*) 4 October 2006,   50,350  (daily: 59,600*) 5 October 2006,   53,950* (daily: 55,800) 7 October 2006,   54,550* (daily: 47,850) 9 October 2006,   55,450* (daily: 56,600) 13 October 2006,   54,700  (daily: 62,150*) first daily reach over 60,000 14 October 2006,   55,500* (daily: 52,950) 15 October 2006,   56,850* (daily: 60,550) 16 October 2006,   57,350* (daily: 60,150) 17 October 2006,   57,900* (daily: 59,650) 18 October 2006,   58,450* (daily: 59,800) 19 October 2006,   58,900* (daily: 57,250) 23 October 2006,   57,500  (daily: 63,100*) 6 November 2006,  58,750  (daily: 63,350*) 7 November 2006,  59,150* (daily: 62,350) 8 November 2006,  59,500* (daily: 60,800) 12 November 2006,  60,000* (daily: 64,000*) first weekly average reach over 60,000 13 November 2006,  60,450* (daily: 66,400*) 14 November 2006,  60,700* (daily: 63,950) 17 November 2006,  61,750* (daily: 57,150) 3 December 2006,  63,100* (daily: 62,300) 22 December 2006,  51,200  (daily: 45,800) 31 December 2006,  46,500  (daily: 43,750) holiday period slump 3 January 2007,   50,600  (daily: 59,250) 7 January 2007,   55,050  (daily: 56,800) 4 February 2007,  59,500  (daily: 58,500) 15 February 2007, 61,350  (daily: 62,850) 19 February 2007, 61,800  (daily: 69,600*) Chinese New Year spike - daily peak reach 21 February 2007, 63,150* (daily: 67,900) 23 February 2007, 64,350* (daily: 63,200) 25 February 2007, 65,150* (daily: 60,950) Chinese New Year spike - weekly peak reach 16 April 2007,    63,250  (daily: 67,600) 2 May 2007,      63,750  (daily: 70,750*) first daily reach over 70,000 6 May 2007,      66,000* (daily: 67,700) 7 May 2007,      66,900* (daily: 70,850*) 29 May 2007,      63,700  (daily: 69,450) 9 August 2007,   65,000  (daily: 69,450) 13 August 2007,   67,350* (daily: 70,950*) 14 August 2007,   67,550* (daily: 71,500*) 15 August 2007,   67,950* (daily: 72,200*) 16 August 2007,   68,100* (daily: 71,000) 17 August 2007,   68,650* (daily: 67,150) 18 August 2007,   69,000* (daily: 63,550) 20 August 2007,   69,850* (daily: 74,650*) 21 August 2007,   70,450* (daily: 75,650*) first weekly average reach over 70,000 22 August 2007,   71,000* (daily: 76,050*) 28 August 2007,   74,050* (daily: 80,350*) first daily reach over 80,000 4 September 2007, 71,450 (daily: 80,700*) 6 September 2007, 74,100* (daily: 79,600) 7 September 2007, 75,950* (daily: 74,600) 8 September 2007, 76,200* (daily: 68,550) 9 September 2007, 77,200* (daily: 80,550) 11 September 2007, 77,400* (daily: 83,350*) 12 September 2007, 77,950* (daily: 83,650*) 13 September 2007, 78,250* (daily: 81,950) 15 September 2007, 78,550* (daily: 70,900) 17 September 2007, 79,850* (daily: 84,000*) 26 September 2007, 81,000* (daily: 86,850*) first weekly average reach over 80,000 27 September 2007, 81,050* (daily: 80,650) 1 October 2007,  81,700* (daily: 87,600*) 5 October 2007,  82,000* (daily: 75,600) 10 October 2007,  78,550  (daily: 88,650*) 14 October 2007,  83,100* (daily: 86,000) 15 October 2007,  84,550* (daily: 90,600*) first daily reach over 90,000 16 October 2007,  86,000* (daily: 91,400*) 17 October 2007,  86,100* (daily: 89,300) 18 October 2007,  86,600* (daily: 89,500) 22 October 2007,  85,850  (daily: 91,550*) 26 October 2007,  87,200* (daily: 83,300) 27 October 2007,  87,700* (daily: 78,900) 30 October 2007,  87,600  (daily: 92,400*) 9 November 2007, 88,350* (daily: 83,800) 10 November 2007, 88,800* (daily: 80,950) 11 November 2007, 89,250* (daily: 93,650*) 13 November 2007, 89,650* (daily: 94,050*) 19 November 2007, 90,000* (daily: 94,850*) first weekly average reach over 90,000 23 January 2008,  90,300* (daily: 94,550) 29 January 2008,  91,450* (daily: 97,400*) 5 February 2008, 94,600* (daily: 96,800) 11 February 2008, 93,200  (daily: 98,200*) 3 March 2008,    94,450  (daily: 99,500*) 5 March 2008,    94,650* (daily: 97,800) 10 March 2008,    94,650  (daily: 100,000*) first daily reach over 100,000 31 March 2008,    96,600* (daily: 102,400*) 2 April 2008,    97,600* (daily: 102,200) 6 April 2008,    99,050* (daily: 105,450*) 7 April 2008,    99,600* (daily: 104,100) 8 April 2008,    99,750* (daily: 103,200) 10 April 2008,    99,950* (daily: 101,100) 1 June 2008,    114,200* (daily: 116,600) * new records after gap in Alexa updates 3 June 2008,    114,200  (daily: 118,600) * 5 June 2008,    115,500* (daily: 114,500) 17 May 2010,     131,600* (daily: 123,000*) 11 October 2011, 147,500* (daily: 147,000*)

Alexa page views per million measurement for wikipedia.org
Alexa page view statistics for wikipedia.org per million overall page views; the score of 2,000 reached in January 2006 meant in theory that Wikipedia was getting 0.2% of all Internet page views for all sites or one pageview in five hundred; a score of 10,000 would equate to 1% of all internet page views. Since this statistic is only displayed as a graph, rather than a number, you will need to estimate it from the graph displayed via the link given above, and use the date displayed on the graph, which is sometimes not up-to-date. As there is a clear weekly pattern of peaks and troughs, it is best to estimate the average for the last seven days, which will give a more realistic picture of long term trends. This can be done quite accurately using the 7-day graph here.

1 January 2003,     10 1 April 2003,       20 1 July 2003,        25 1 October 2003,     70* 1 January 2004,     70 1 April 2004,      110* 1 July 2004,       104 1 August 2004,     110 1 September 2004,  130* 1 October 2004,    140* 1 November 2004,   195* 1 December 2004,   290* 1 January 2005,    330* 20 January 2005,    300 30 January 2005,    318 11 February 2005,   344* 14 February 2005,   358* 18 February 2005,   370* 21 February 2005,   325 27 February 2005,   375* 1 March 2005,      365 3 March 2005,      350 21 March 2005,      435* 22 March 2005,      440* 23 March 2005,      450* 24 March 2005,      380 26 March 2005,      425 30 March 2005,      480* 31 March 2005,      440 3 April 2005,      580* 12 April 2005,      525 23 April 2005,      575 30 April 2005,      590* 6 May  2005,       695* 12 May  2005,       750* 2 June 2005,       620 11 June 2005,       575 12 June 2005,       650 18 June 2005,       640 19 June 2005,       700 20 June 2005,       625 22 June 2005,       650 28 June 2005,       660 30 June 2005,       680 4 July 2005,       730 8 July 2005,       740 10 July 2005,       840* 14 July 2005,       720 15 July 2005,       800 17 July 2005,       860* 18 July 2005,       825 21 July 2005,       805 22 July 2005,       765 23 July 2005,       760 24 July 2005,       780 25 July 2005,       750 27 July 2005,       745 29 July 2005,       750 31 July 2005,       800 1 August 2005,     750 6 August 2005,     800 8 August 2005,     800 9 August 2005,     795 11 August 2005,     810 13 August 2005,     840 15 August 2005,     845 19 August 2005,     855 22 August 2005,     900* 24 August 2005,     840 1 September 2005,  860 5 September 2005,  920* 11 September 2005, 1,020* 4 October 2005,  1,140* 16 October 2005,  1,090 21 October 2005,    960 26 October 2005,  1,010 1 November 2005, 1,040 9 November 2005, 1,025 23 November 2005,   950 27 November 2005, 1,100 3 December 2005, 1,070 5 December 2005, 1,210* 10 December 2005, 1,280* 11 December 2005, 1,595* 12 December 2005, 1,345 13 December 2005, 1,390 15 December 2005, 1,450 16 December 2005, 1,370 17 December 2005, 1,580 18 December 2005, 1,715* 19 December 2005, 1,485 20 December 2005, 1,450 22 December 2005, 1,480 24 December 2005, 1,525 25 December 2005, 1,635 28 December 2005, 1,460 31 December 2005, 1,650 1 January 2006,  1,930* 2 January 2006,  1,980* 7 January 2006,  1,860 8 January 2006,  2,020* 14 January 2006,  1,830 16 January 2006,  2,060* 20 January 2006,  2,260* 26 January 2006,  2,485* 27 January 2006,  2,540* 30 January 2006,  2,700* spike during the Chinese New Year season 4 February 2006, 2,540 15 February 2006, 2,300 25 February 2006, 2,300 7 March 2006,    2,400 29 March 2006,    2,450 12 April 2006,    2,500 16 April 2006,    2,600 21 April 2006,    2,625 27 April 2006,    2,640 2 May 2006,      2,755* 5 May 2006,      2,830* 22 May 2006,      2,740 3 June 2006,     2,780 12 June 2006,     2,800 9 July 2006,     2,895* 11 July 2006,     2,955* 13 July 2006,     2,985* 14 August 2006,   2,980 15 August 2006,   3,005* 20 August 2006,   3,075* 22 August 2006,   3,055 26 August 2006,   3,140* 28 August 2006,   3,210* 1 September 2006, 3,245* 11 September 2006, 3,380* 26 September 2006, 3,385* 5 October 2006,  3,415* 9 October 2006,  3,575* 13 October 2006,  3,705* 14 October 2006,  3,785* 15 October 2006,  3,865* 17 October 2006,  3,895* 7 November 2006, 3,825 14 November 2006, 3,915* 18 November 2006, 4,050* 3 December 2006, 4,160* 31 December 2006, 3,900 8 January 2007,  4,250* 15 February 2007, 4,410* 25 February 2007, 4,680* 24 April 2007,    4,800* 9 August 2007,    5,175* 13 August 2007,   5,300* 21 August 2007,   5,500* 26 September 2007, 5,775* 18 October 2007,  5,900* 16 December 2007, 5,500 17 May 2010,      5,722 11 October 2011,  5,629

Alexa country rankings
In April 2006 Alexa introduced rankings on a by-country basis. Wikipedia's rankings are shown in the table below. These are subject to the aforementioned caveats about Alexa rankings and also the additional caveat that not all internet addresses can accurately be sourced to a specific country. Many of the sites ahead of Wikipedia in each country are portals/search engines/ISP sites so its rankings are influenced by the degree of consolidation in those markets in each country.

Note: Access to Wikipedia has been blocked in mainland China most of the time from 19 October 2005 to date. See Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China.

Top Reference sites
On 10 March 2005, Wikipedia was listed in Alexa's list of reference sites at #4.

10 March   2005,      #4 22 March   2005,      #4 26 March   2005,      #4 (but traffic rank has now outstripped that of #3, dictionary.com) 2 April   2005,      #4 1 May     2005,      #4 (traffic rank and reach still higher than #3, dictionary.com) 13 May     2005,      #3 (at last! #3, after #2 www.mapquest.com, and #1 my.yahoo.com) 26 June    2005,      #2 (mapquest.com finally conquered!) 21 October 2005,      #2 (still behind My Yahoo!) 9 February 2006,     #1 (don't know when it achieved #1, but it's there as of Feb.) 19 July    2006,      #1 (still at the top!) 31 December 2006,     #1 (still there!) 21 May     2008,      #9 (how did it drop?) 15 August  2008,      #5 (no idea, but it's back up to #5 now) 10 November 2008,     #1 (they list wikipedia.org and English Wikipedia (now at #8) separately..) 17 May     2010,      #1 (and has been for quite some time)

Top Kids and Teens sites
On 9 July 2005, Wikipedia was listed in Alexa's list of top kids and teens sites at #2. By 1 October 2005 it has moved up to #1. In April 2010, the English version of Wikipedia had dropped to #5. This list is based on reach, rather than rank.

Top "School Time" sites
On 3 August 2005, Wikipedia was listed in Alexa's top list of "School Time" sites at #1.

Encyclopedias
On 3 August 2005, Wikipedia was listed in Alexa's top online Encyclopedia list at #1.

Software
On 21 May 2008, Wikipedia was listed in Alexa's top Software list at #1.

Wikiquote
On 3 August 2005, Wikiquote was listed in Alexa's top quotations list at #5.

3 August 2005,    #5 30 September 2005, #5 16 November 2005,  #5 14 February 2006,  #4 12 April 2006,     #3 22 April 2006,     #2 8 May 2006,       #2 12 July 2006,      #2 24 August 2006,    #2 13 October 2006,   #1 2 January 2007,   #1 21 May 2008,       #1 11 November 2009,  #2 17 May 2010,       #3 (beaten by thinkexist.com at #1, and brainyquote.com at #2)

On 11 November 2009, it had an overall rank of #3,019.

Wiktionary
On 14 November 2005, Wiktionary was listed in Alexa's top online dictionary list at #19.

On 21 May  Wiktionary had an overall rank of #1,316.

14 November 2005, #19 24 November 2005, #20 6 December 2005, #18 24 December 2005, #17 16 January 2006,  #16 9 February 2006, #13 14 February 2006, #12 17 March   2006,  #11 8 May     2006,  #10 4 July    2006,  #9 7 July    2006,  #8 13 October 2006,  #6 2 January 2007,  #6 13 March   2007,  #6 21 May     2008,  #6 27 April   2010,  #7 (beat out by dict.cc)

Top Reference sites
On 21 May 2008, Wiktionary was listed in Alexa's list of reference sites at #19. In April 2010, it had dropped to #22.

21 May     2008,      #19 27 April   2010,      #22

So how many people visit Wikipedia?
In May 2006 comScore World Metrix, a new global internet tracking system, placed what it calls "Wikipedia Sites" (presumably actually all Wikimedia sites as it makes a point of grouping all sites under common ownership) seventh on its list of "Online Properties Worldwide", with an estimated 131 million unique visitors aged 15+ in March 2006, or 19% of all internet users aged 15+, based on comScore's estimate that there were 694 million of them that month.

The difference from Wikipedia's Alexa ranking is accounted for in part by comscore's grouping of related sites, as Alexa has 2 Microsoft sites and 2 Google sites ahead of Wikipedia, but comScore counts each owner only once. In addition, some sites with much higher daily "Page Views per user", as recorded by Alexa, are ahead of Wikipedia in the Alexa rankings, but not in comScore's rankings, as comScore measures only breadth of use, not intensity of use. By January 2007 Wikipedia's estimated unique user number was 189.0 million, and it was ranked sixth.

External link

 * Google trends displaying the usage of the word "Wikipedia" in Google searches

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Awareness statistics