4 ms·

I'm afraid this will remove any results from page :-D

• martinlaz 7y ago
  Is it really that bad? I surely hope it's not. I noticed that even Wikipedia is reported as having some trackers. But when I looked closer I noticed that most of those belong to the Wikimedia foundation, which is fine. I mean, I don't mind site owners tracking what I do on their site, I just don't want to be followed across the whole Web. The rest of the Wikipedia trackers are supposed to be Google fonts and statics, but I couldn't witness any calls to those. Maybe the stats are not quite up to date? If such a score is to be given, it better be fair and reflecting the current state of affairs.
  • sammacbeth_ 7y ago
    Hi, I work at Cliqz on our Anti-tracking system, and the WhoTracks.Me data that powers these stats on the search page. These stats are updated monthly, and based on millions of loads of each site. The WhoTracks.Me page for wikipedia.org (https://whotracks.me/websites/wikipedia.org.html https://whotracks.me/websites/wikipedia.org.html) shows that the Google Fonts and Google Static trackers occur very infrequently (<2% of pages), so may be on some part of the site that you did not visit. While the Wikimedia tracker may seem innocuous, they do set a cookie that is sent in third-party contexts, and have presence across several sites beyond Wikipedia (133 of the top 10k) (https://whotracks.me/trackers/wikimedia.org.html https://whotracks.me/trackers/wikimedia.org.html). Theoretically, they could track user sessions across these sites. In reality this is likely an oversight in the server configuration, but objectively this profile looks no different to that of a legitimate tracker.
    • martinlaz 7y ago
      Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense now. And that's ... depressing.