wikipedia.org scored 89 on Inspectrosite

I pointed Inspectrosite at wikipedia.org next, as a contrast to the google.com note. It followed the redirect to www.wikipedia.org/, checked that final page, and came back with 89 out of 100, grade B.

Quick disclosure: Inspectrosite is Byteslip’s own free browser tool. The badge above is just a picture of the score from our scan, not proof of anything (anyone can type a number into a badge link). The real record is the scan itself, and you can run it again here.

What the 89 is, and isn’t

We started at https://wikipedia.org/. Inspectrosite followed Wikipedia’s redirect and audited https://www.wikipedia.org/ — the language-portal homepage, the Free Encyclopedia gateway with links into dozens of languages. That is not a random article, and it is not English Wikipedia’s Main Page. It’s the front door.

It ran 57 checks: 38 passed, 11 warned, 1 failed, and 7 were info only. The score is an average of the checks that count: a pass is worth 100, a warning 60, a fail 0, and info checks are left out. So 89 tells you how this one page did on Inspectrosite’s checklist. It isn’t a grade for Wikimedia, and it says nothing about how good the encyclopedia is.

Compared with the google.com scan, the difference is mostly the kind of page. Google’s homepage scored 75 (C) with five fails typical of a JavaScript search box — no viewport, no description, no <h1>, a duplicate ID, and 93.9 KB of inline JS. Wikipedia’s portal is a real content page with a heading, a meta description, and about 1,296 words of visible text, so the markup and SEO checks look much stronger. It lost most of its points on warnings, and it has one accessibility fail.

The raw numbers from the scan: the HTML came back in 0.68s (680 ms including our proxy), the document was a lean 119.6 KB (122,421 bytes), and the page had 4 scripts (2 external, 2 inline), 7 images, 0 stylesheets, 383 links, and 1 form.

The one fail, in plain language

1. 1. 1 button(s) with no name

   Inspectrosite found one button with no accessible name. Unlabeled buttons are announced as just “button,” which is unusable for blind visitors. A text label or an aria-label on that control would clear the fail.

A few warnings worth a look

• Head tags: the title is just “Wikipedia” (9 chars). There’s no canonical URL, no theme-color meta, and no Twitter/X card tag. Open Graph itself is fine at 3/3.
• Images and forms: all 7 images use empty alt text, and 2 fields are missing labels. Placeholders alone don’t count as labels.
• Image formats: no modern image formats (WebP/AVIF) — the 7 images are JPEG/PNG only.
• Security headers: no X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff, no clickjacking protection (neither X-Frame-Options nor CSP frame-ancestors), and no referrer policy.
• Links: 5 target=_blank links are missing rel=noopener.

None of those are dramatic on their own. Together they explain how a page with only one fail still lands at 89 instead of the 90s.

What looked solid

Markup, content, and basic delivery were the strong parts of this scan. The points it gave back were mostly accessibility polish and a handful of missing security headers — not “Wikipedia is broken.”

Scores change

This is one scan, taken at 2:29 AM Hawaii time (HST) on November 6, 2026. Wikipedia changes its portal, and Inspectrosite gets updates too, so a scan today might not come out to 89. Re-scan www.wikipedia.org, or try your own site. For the other popular homepage we ran the same day, see google.com scored 75 on Inspectrosite.