MediaWiki API result

{
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "continue": {
        "gapcontinue": "Redistricting",
        "continue": "gapcontinue||"
    },
    "warnings": {
        "main": {
            "*": "Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."
        },
        "revisions": {
            "*": "Because \"rvslots\" was not specified, a legacy format has been used for the output. This format is deprecated, and in the future the new format will always be used."
        }
    },
    "query": {
        "pages": {
            "54": {
                "pageid": 54,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "Reading",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": " \n\n==How To Read==\nWhenever you read a book, you should write notes about it. Mediawiki software is good for that. Keeping track of your notes is important too--- perhaps even more important than writing them up, since though writing them up is a good exercise, if you instantly deleted them, that removes much though not all of their usefulness. Not remembering where they are is the same as having deleted them. No-- I lie. Actually, not remembering where they are is much worse, because not only do you not have them available, but you waste considerable time trying to find them. This would not happen if we were fully rational, but there seems to be a systematic bias towards underestimating the amount of time and effort requried to find something as opposed to re-creating it. This is related to what George Stigler wrote about information--- that it is not a zero-marginal-cost good once produced, and in fact often it is easier to rederive information than to look it up. \n----\n\n[https://stevenson.ucsc.edu/academics/stevenson-college-core-courses/how-to-mark-a-book-1.pdf \"How to Mark a Book,\"\n]   Mortimer J. Adler, \nFrom The Saturday Review of Literature, July 6, 1941).\n\n==What To Read==\nI see that in my reading, I am like a bird who flits from bush to bush eating berries, even if the first bush has the most and best berries. Birds do this for good reasons. Do I?  Or should I just read what's best? \n----"
                    }
                ]
            },
            "51": {
                "pageid": 51,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "Recycling",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                        "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                        "*": "  September 21, 2020\n[https://quillette.com/2020/09/21/as-city-budgets-shrink-its-time-to-rethink-recycling-programs/ As City Budgets Shrink, It\u2019s Time to Rethink Recycling Programs]\nwritten by Howard Husock and John Tierney\n{{Quotation| \nThe city of Rye, NY, with just 15,000 residents, spends some $500,000 annually to collect recyclables. In Boston, the city\u2019s recycling contract calls for it to pay between $125 to $160 per ton to dispose of recyclables, compared with just $80 per ton for general trash. Dallas, the city with the rosiest recycling finances of the municipalities analyzed in the Manhattan Institute study, spends $14 million annually on separate collection\u2014a cost which homeowners absorb\u2014thanks to a long-term fixed-price contract and a landfill owned by the city itself. \u201cThe current economics of it, absolutely, it would make more sense to landfill,\u201d says Tim Oliver, the head of the city\u2019s Department of Sanitation Services. \u201cI think that\u2019s the case across the country\u2014or the world for that matter\u2014in most cases.\u201d}}"
                    }
                ]
            }
        }
    }
}