Talk:Web browser

Market share numbers overly-specific

Hi @Pek, I believe having such specific numbers for the market share (at least in the introduction) is not helpful, especially given how much they change. I propose we go back to rounding to the nearest percent, and get rid of the ranges. The point is not to be hyper-specific, especially given how much it changes. The browser market share article can be visited if people want to get this specific. And comparing multiple sources isn't that helpful in my opinion. StatCounter appears to be the one that is usually used, e.g. on the market share article. But I figured I'd run this by you before I make the change. MoonlitSpectre (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @MoonlitSpectre. Rounding sounds good. --Pek (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! Looks great. MoonlitSpectre (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2026

Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser#Privacy paragraph

From:

A study from 2020 portrays that there are two tiers of browsers in terms of privacy: the privacy-focused ones (Brave, DuckDuckGo, LibreWolf, Tor,Mullvad, Helium and Firefox-Focus) perform better than popular ones (Chrome, Firefox, and Safari) and recommend the first ones.[48] Blocking fingerprinting, cookies, tracking scripts, ads, etc. seems to explain that difference.[48]

To:

A 2023 CODASPY study[48] comparing several mobile browsers found that privacy-focused browsers such as Brave, DuckDuckGo, and Firefox Focus generally offered stronger protection against online tracking than mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. The difference was largely attributable to stronger default blocking of trackers, advertising resources, cookies, and some fingerprinting-related mechanisms.

Change link associated with citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser#cite_note-:0-48

From:

ISBN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/979-8-4007-0067-5

To:

https://anupamdas.org/paper/CODASPY2023.pdf Jnn94 (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: How is this an improvement over what is already there? Why should we get rid of the 2020 study information? meamemg (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There was nothing in the 2020 conference that compared browsers in this way. However, there was a study in the 2023 conference, which the original ISBN number does correctly reference. As such, I believe referencing the 2020 study was potentially a typo.

All that said, the original paragraph is still inaccurate and misleading on what the study actually concluded.

(I also feel that it is poorly structured, grammatically-speaking.) Jnn94 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)