DISQUS

michael · 2 years ago

The really interesting thing about the web is that with analytics we can get a sense how people are actually using, well, everything. In about a day on the web you can probably collect more information about how people use Wikipedia than has ever been collected on how people use a traditional encyclopedia. How do we know that an encyclopedia is not used the same way, i.e. that the more salacious entries get the most attention? It is almost a cliche now, but don't most adolescents' experience with dictionaries primarily revolve around looking up naughty words? I know mine did. All the research I've ever read about public libraries says that the most checked out books are current bestsellers, not classics. Why would we expect that behavior to be any different online?

Richard Chapman · 2 years ago

I think this is a case of killing the messenger. The stats on the top 100 on Wikipedia most likely correlate with the top 100 searches on Google, or pretty close. All that shows is what our culture is most interested in, not what Wikipedia makes people want to see. So what are the top 100 subjects "turned to" in the Britannica? If we even new it wouldn't be a fair comparison because the Britannica doesn't even come close to covering the wide swath of subjects that Wikipedia does. I wouldn't blame the bottle for the bad tasting wine, I would blame the wine maker, or makers.

If you want to find fault with Wikipedia then call them on who's keeping track of the content. And the credentials of the editors.

DHC · 2 years ago

Michael, I think you're right. It is not a complete shock that traffic drifts to more salacious/not-so-highbrow entries. But it is a bit of a disappointment to realize that Wikipedia is most often helping people learn about Pokemon, American Idol and Anna Nicole Smith. At some level, it changes how you look at Wikipedia. It leaves you wondering whether its content and focus is becoming too diffuse and whether the lines between it and Geocities are becoming a bit too blurred.

Lori · 2 years ago

Hmm...my guess is that it's sort of like the long tail. The Top 100 pages get the most hits, but for each of those pages, there are 100,000 pages that only got 10 hits each. Those pages will never hit the Top 100, but in a day, there were far more hits to pages not featured on the Top 100 than pages that were.

DH C · 2 years ago

There are some excellent points being made here. My post was not meant to undermine the basic goodness of Wikipedia, but more to point out user patterns that weren't immediately obvious, at least to me. I think the long tail view is spot on. There are likely thousands of high quality entries that receive a small number of pages views each day, but they probably collectively amount to a tremendous amount of traffic. And that's where Wikipedia makes its contribution. Good points all.

Wati Wara · 2 years ago

Being a teacher, I would suggest that this indicates that a lot of the traffic to Wikipedia is coming from kids and schools. The topics you mention are the things that kids are interested in and want to know about.
Wara ;-)