Thanks for that. Now it is a bit more work to get an idea, but not
misleadinga ny more.

Looks good! Thanks.

Hi JAllemandou,
I suspected something like this. Then it looks to me badly labelled. It should say on the page what you just told me ("include user, spider and automated traffic").
But the explanation on the page sound like the opposite "Page views on Wikimedia projects count the viewing of article content. In this data we try to separate bot traffic and focus on human user page views."
So this explanation line should definitively be corrected. Can you accept that?

Hi JAllemandou,

Ok think I have it. It is the difference between human lookups ("user") and all views including "spider" (is that = crawler?).
It could be labelled more clearly (like "including spider/crawler/automated views") where it is relevant, then I would not have asked. I was astonished to see 4.8 mio views for swwiki,;
It would be better if this shows only the user views in the big headline so that we do not have to wonder about differring numbers on the other lookups within the same page.

By the way I see a similar diference when looking at dewiki
For November Table 2 give 682,669 views per hour, but table 3 gives 1,322,222 vph (breaking down monthly figure of 952 million views in November 2017).
Do the tables use different sets of data? Then they should be labelled accordingly.

I compare figures for the same period from different tables. So I look at
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN_Africa/Sitemap.htm Wednesday May 31, 2017 ( I call it here TABLE 1)
Table 1 is "Wikipedia Statistics - Africa" (the present table, data of 31 May 2017 - this a page I often looked at to see swwiki in African context)

I do not think it adds up 2015 - 2017.
I pick a few lemmata fom 1Oct 2015 to today

Ok, that is the reason. Is that for all numbers? (a history page 0.2 instead of 2.0?)

SJ & Risker: If anybody sees a technical solution - wonderful! Who is going to build a database for a filter in Swahili?? We do not have that capacity. I doubt it is a technical problem to be solved by a technical solution.
We are just very few active editors (in fact 4-5, not daily; luckily but intermittently with assistance from a few spam hunting meta-stewards and small wiki monitoring team).
Our target group are Swahili speaking internet users; mostly Tanzanians, with a surprisingly high percentage of US-IP-adresses (homesick students?). All of them speak Swahili daily, few of them write it regularly because African internet users are "better educated" which means educated mainly in some form of English. That is why we have the persistent problem of very frequent faulty Swahili in entries - and even more the problem of off-standard edits. (and the slightly ironical situation that that "we" non-Africans (4 of us steady editors) correct the language of Tanzanians).
We keep on working because we all believe that the situation is going to change (can give reasons) and thus it is worthwhile.

By now 5 have commented, all pro status quo. We do in fact have a huge degree of consensus amongst our active editors. Of those 15 listed by stats.wikimedia.org as "active editors" (+5 edits) for last month there are only 8-9 actually speaking the language and thus able to join any community discussion and thus countable. (I gladly provide more details). Of the 3-4 who have not yet commented only 1 has ever participated in a discussion.