It's 100k people with internet access that speak English. Most likely US and UK based, likely to be using broadband. They clearly have aspirations beyond the basic necessities (read more, run marathons, learn languages), suggesting they perceive a certain level of free time available to dedicate to such pursuits. Heck, Grey's Anatomy is in the top 100.
My point is that this 100k sample is likely to not be representative of the world.
I will agree that the sample is skewed, but I wasn't trying to make the point that the particular 100k people in question constitute a representative sample of the world. I was replying to the sentiment that because the world doesn't consist of 100k people, you can't call 100k people's goals the world's goals. I may not have expressed that as clearly as I could have.
I agree; this represents only a certain type of person in the world, but again, conclusions about the world have been drawn from more specific types.
I just feel it's petty to focus on the title of the article, when the word "world" is consistently applied in narrower senses.
If you're gonna complain about something I'd complain about the fact that people's publically stated goals often differ substantially from their actual goals.
My point is that this 100k sample is likely to not be representative of the world.