Well, finding and then publishing the name of the least viewed wikipedia article would then drive up the view count, nullifying the initial reason for the search!
He's changed the stats by taking a look at the articles to verify things like disambig status, so you'd have to be quite careful how you did your analysis to ensure no reflexivity.
Personally, I think the reflexivity is part of the fun if you do a followup analysis. For example, I recently scraped WP to find 'the first unused acronym on Wikipedia': https://gwern.net/tla - it turns out to be 'CQK', and I'm looking forward to checking back in 10 years or so to see if anyone wound up using 'CQK' for a company or something, precisely because I wrote it up. We'll see!
The quest for finding Hapax Legomena on the Internet suffers from a similar problem, only worse. If you find one, announcing its existence destroys it. See: quizzaciously.
