Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Traffic report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost |2016-01-13
Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report: What was the most-viewed article of 2015? Read to find out!
The Signpost

Traffic report

Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report


Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the third most watched article of 2015.

"Once", wroteIan Fleming inGoldfinger, "is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern" (actually he wrote, "Three times is enemy action", but let's not antagonise our viewers here). If Fleming's assertion is correct that one requires three instances of the same occurrence to identify a pattern, then now would be a pretty good time to try, as this is the third appearance of Wikipedia's annual Traffic Report. And while the dogged stalwarts of the list (Deaths in [insert year here],[insert year here] in film,[Insert Your Home Country Here],World War II) stand firm against all weather, what really reveals itself across the last three years is a shift in usage patterns from recreation to information.

That is not to say, mind you, that recreation is and perhaps will always be the prime motivator of our viewership, whatever our intentions as editors may be. Rather, Wikipedia viewers are becoming cannier in how they use Wikipedia to augment their recreation. The presence ofChris Kyle, for instance, could only be due to the popularity of the filmAmerican Sniper, but that film is nowhere to be seen. Instead, viewers were drawn to the man himself, the tragedy of his death, and the myriad controversies surrounding his legacy. Ditto Colombian drug kingpinPablo Escobar; viewers of the hitNetflix seriesNarcos turned for information not to the article on the show, but to that of the man whose violent wheel-dealings it portrayed. TheStephen Hawking biopicThe Theory of Everything may have been a modest hit, but that was not what brought viewers to Wikipedia, who were more interested in the film's subject than the film itself.

World War II was #25, returning after 100-year anniversaries in 2014 sawWorld War I pass it.

The patterns of colour reveal a stark change in usage, though it is still too early to know if it marks a longterm trend. 2013 was dominated by the red of television, but both 2014 and 2015 have increasingly embraced the orange of film. 2015 is clearly the year film took over; 11 articles on the Top 25 list, nearly half the total, are either on films or are film-related, compared with five last year and two in 2013. In my first annual report I speculated that television would dominate over film because its longform structure meant it could maintain our interest for longer periods. I have apparently reckoned without the Event Movie.

In 2015, Hollywood rediscovered the magic of marketing. Movies this year were so huge (the four on the list released this year are all in the top tenhighest-grossing films of all time) that they exerted their presence over months; watching the commercials and then the discussions on the news became as much a part of the experience as the film itself. Other patterns can also be seen; the bright yellow of websites has gradually lost ground, while the electric blue of current events has grown.

Given that a sizeable portion of traffic to website articles is doubtless due to people searching for the sites themselves and clicking the wrong Google hit, it shows, perhaps, that our viewers are becoming more Internet savvy, and are consciously employing it as an information tool, rather than as a means to chat or watch cat videos. One colour I am very happy to see the end of is beige.IPv6, with the benefit of hindsight, probably would have been excluded today, butsex has a far more storied and venerable past. Time was when this report would have been pointless; in the last decade, Wikipedia was still seen as something of a toy, and its only regular viewers were school children looking up naughty words. Sex, that most universal of human preoccupations, was the last to go. I do not expect to see it again.

For a list of the raw Top 5000 most viewed Wikipedia articles of 2015 (but be careful to exclude articles with almost 100% or 0% mobile views, which are afflicted by bots like the longstandingAngelsberg), seehere. For the most recently weekly Top 25 reports, seeDec 20-26 Report andDec 27 - Jan 2 Report.

The Top 25 most viewed articles of 2015 were:

Top 25 Articles of 2015
RankArticleClassViews
1Deaths in 2015List27,885,484
2Chris KyleC-Class27,765,570
3Star Wars: The Force AwakensC-Class23,523,985
4FacebookB-class22,330,302
5Stephen HawkingB-class20,060,944
6Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantB-class19,335,481
7List of Bollywood films of 2014List18,171,094
8GoogleGood Article18,107,283
9Avengers: Age of UltronGood Article17,409,029
10United StatesGood Article16,855,064
11Kanye WestGood Article16,478,369
12Game of ThronesB-class16,135,993
13Star WarsGood Article15,580,814
14WikipediaC-class15,157,792
15Furious 7B-Class14,740,823
16Jurassic WorldC-class14,283,010
17Donald TrumpB-Class14,052,391
18Fifty Shades of GreyB-Class13,362,580
19Pablo EscobarB-Class13,190,232
20IndiaFeatured Article12,864,393
212014 in filmList12,542,233
22Floyd Mayweather, Jr.B-class12,436,450
23Ronda RouseyC-class12,298,765
24Paul WalkerB-class12,201,471
25World War IIGood Article12,149,875
Key
Website
Person
TV show
Film
Country
Current event
Historical event
Novel
Other
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automaticallytranscluded from this article'stalk page. To follow comments,add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can trypurging the cache.

This really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most: Deaths, entertainment (movies, TV, sports) and politics (including nation states). Even Stephen Hawking's listing is probably due to the film about his life. I've read criticism that too much attention has been given by editors to popular culture but it looks like these are subjects that readers frequently come to Wikipedia to read about. Perhaps few people will want to read about Chris Kyle 10 years from now compared to more academic topics. But while Wikipedia is not the news, readers are seeking the latest, verifiable information on subjects in the news.LizRead!Talk!16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that "this really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most" is supported by the evidence. It may very well be that, for example, no one particular smart phone, supreme court decision, or geographic feature gets as much traffic as Chris Kyle, but traffic for all smart phones, all supreme court decision, or all geographic features lumped together get more traffic. Counting the traffic to individual Wikipedia pages is an unreliable indicator of interest because some topics are contained within a single page while other topics are distributed among many pages. --Guy Macon (talk)18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows what we (Earth people) have in common. (E.g. I have read a lot of the article on the list and a lot of chemistry articles too, my neighbour has read the list too, and a lot of folk dance related articles ...)Christian75 (talk)19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure we cover what matters to you –leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/Traffic_report&oldid=1321374647"
Category:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp