Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-01-16/Traffic report


 * The following content has been adapted from the Annual Top 50 Report. Any views expressed are those of the individual authors and not necessarily shared by the Signpost; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments.

2017 has been a tumultuous and intriguing year, and with it came a swath of things which readers came to English Wikipedia to learn about. The topics are diverse, incorporating pop culture, politics, pre-eminent deaths and perennially popular pages. In the spirit of sharing knowledge, trivia, opinions, and ideas, we prepared the 50 most read articles of the year with hand-written commentary.

Without further ado, here is a special Top 50 Report for 2017. We aim to educate, engage, entertain, and enthrall. Enjoy.

Annual Top 50
Based on the raw data from West.andrew.g and prepared with commentary by:

Round Table Discussion

 * 1. Which entry in the Top 50 struck you the most?
 * For me personally, it was the prominence of the Queen. She ranks at #3 on the list, which is phenomenal when you consider the fame and ubiquity of many of the entries which fall below her. As well as being testament to the terrific power of Netflix, I think that the continued strong performance should act to dispel the myth that no one cares about the monarchy. It is also a sign that many readers don't journey to Wikipedia for negative news, but rather come for knowledge. This is a surefire sign for me that the encyclopedia, despite often carrying a tone that is somewhat negative (just look at the entries above), is succeeding in its mission to inform, a point that is bolstered by the sheer quality of the Queen's article (it is a Featured Article after all). Provides me with hope, reassurance that the time of Wikipedians is unwasted, and belief that the mission of Jimmy Wales is still being fulfilled. Stormy clouds (talk)
 * It's interesting to see which media properties hit the top. While it was pretty clear the most popular show would probably be Game of Thrones, I certainly wouldn't have predicted at the start of the year that the second most popular show would be 13 Reasons Why, or that the most popular film would be Baahubali 2: The Conclusion, a show and film that, had I not been working on the weekly lists, I doubt would have particularly entered my sphere of knowledge. OZOO (t) (c)
 * Along with something that was mentioned once, that people somehow seek the subjects of history-based television instead of the shows themselves (the Queen, Pablo Escobar – even if the latest season of Narcos wasn't about him!), and as I mentioned in the list, the top Hollywood movie being It, I was surprised by the high views on Millennials, which averaged 30,000 daily. It certainly owes to all the negative conotation and scapegoating garnered by this generation, which apparently I'm part of (though I prefer the previous name, "Generation Y", as me and my contemporaries are frequently frustrated and asking "why?"; and don't know if only because I'm getting old, but what I see from Generation Z makes me feel the next ones are worse). igordebraga ≠
 * This list isn't particularly different from last year's, allowing for the fact that 2016 was a US election year. But the appearance of millennials, as noted by Igor, is striking. I think it can be tied to the political theme of the year, since politics in the last two years or so have divided largely along generational lines, with the young tending towards progressive populism and the old tending towards right wing populism.  Serendi pod ous  01:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. Which entry frustrated you to the greatest degree?
 * I feel like this should be explicable from my authorial stance on the singer, but it is absolutely Ed Sheeran. It may speak a lot to my own temperament and personality that, in a year riddled with death and rife with disappointment, it is a somewhat innocent and harmless musician who arouses such virulent venom in me, yet here we are. In the past, political turmoil and conflict has produced some great art, from Guernica to the wonder of Woodstock. The fact that this is the most popular music of the day, with its simplistic rhymes and aimless, ambling messages, is enraging to me, particularly given his omnipresence. After beginning with optimism, seeing him pop up in a place that he should not be again was frustrating, and sapped me of all that accumulated positivity. But hey, I am just thinking out loud. Stormy clouds (talk)
 * To me, what frustrates me marginally is the seeming lack of political interest from Wikipedia users. While President Trump, the First Lady and former President Obama get in, they are the only political figures, with the electoral trials of President Macron, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister May, and the downfall of Mr. Mugabe not attracting lasting interest. Not even India, the main contributor to the list aside from the US, is able to get a politician into it. OZOO (t) (c)
 * Out of all the people who died this year, the only one that entered the Top 50 was a madman that led a murderous cult - aside from the singer I never liked we indirectly included. Specially as the one famous death that really struck me, Chris Cornell (who even was indirectly responsible for the death of his friend Chester), deserved better than #56, directly below The Fate of the Furious.  igordebraga ≠ (At last count, Albert Einstein snuck in between them. — JFG talk)
 * Having curated this list for nearly four years now, what has frustrated me since day one is that, having been offered the single greatest source of free knowledge in world history, people tend to use it to seek out information they could easily obtain elsewhere- film release dates and reviews, TV times, celeb bios. It's certainly better than the early years, when people used Wikipedia primarily to look up "naughty" words, but still, it raises the question, are we really helping people?  Serendi pod ous  01:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3. Many of the entries in the report share similarities and recurrent themes, with movies and television proving especially prominent. What did you make of these developments this year?
 * It speaks to the power that entertainment now holds over us, in my view. I don't subscribe to the idea of the Golden Age of Television, especially given that, as a keen observer of all of the television series listed here, I was not overtly enamored by any of them in this year. On the film size, it is not particularly surprising to see so many appear with such prominence. The popularity of super-hero flicks and Star Wars amongst those who peruse the encyclopedia speaks volumes regarding the demographics of Wikipedia (even if the best one missed out). It is also of note that many of the best films released theatrically in my locality in 2017, at least in my view, fail to make an appearance in lieu of derivative nonsense. However, as Bob Dylan foretold, in his prescience and pre-eminence, the times are a-changin', and this is evident from the performance of Baahubali 2: The Conclusion. Its power is indicative of an integral and irreversibly culture shift on the internet, and I find this development far more intriguing than the continued adventures of Thor, Diana Prince et al. Stormy clouds (talk)
 * Netflix's shows should not be counted as "TV", they are webcasts, and should be treated as such. Split is higher than I expected, and I certainly didn't expect the three Marvel Cinematic Universe movies to be lower than the two from the DC Extended Universe. OZOO (t) (c)
 * The news are so upsetting that it's no surprise people are resorting to escapism, even if with cultural products regarding darker themes - 2017's list has three horror movies, entries related to three Netflix series with heavier subjects (teen suicide! monsters in a small town! Colombian drug dealers!), and the only world that's worst than ours, the one of Game of Thrones. Even if I'm not a big television guy, there's no doubt the medium - although Netflix is a more grey area - is attracting big creators and actors, and while it might not to be a New Hollywood situation, studios certainly a concern to make better products and take people away from their homes (after all, many Wikipedia visits might be people wanting to know if the movie's response is positive!), no matter if the budget is low - the aforementioned horror films - or based on a property that makes it automatically profitable - the only movie in the list critics didn't really like was Justice League, which reviewers still pointed out was better than the two DC offerings from last year. igordebraga ≠
 * I've always been puzzled by which movies appear on this list; there never seems any rhyme or reason. Box office? Yes, most on the list were big hits, but the biggest hit of the year, Beauty and the Beast, is nowhere to be found. Critical acclaim? That certainly could explain Get Out and Logan, but not Split. Controversy? Then where was Ghost in the Shell or Death Note? Looking for a rationale is like looking for a pattern in the prime numbers. You think you see it and then it just slips away.  Serendi pod ous  01:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4. What entries do you anticipate making their way onto the list in 2018?
 * Given the popularity of pop culture amongst purveyors of Wikipedia, I imagine that Avengers: Infinity War will reign supreme, alongside what ever else the magicians have to offer for us. Politics will also play a prevalent role, as ever, with the Don likely to continue his reign near the pinnacle of people's minds, in spite of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. Sadly, death will account for many a spot, especially as some legends reach their inevitable end and depart. On a more positive note, the football aficionado in me relishes the return of the World Cup, and is hoping against hope for a recurrence of the splendor that was '05, and Super Mo will take the spot held in this list by Cristiano Ronaldo. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but stranger things have happened. Stormy clouds (talk)
 * I anticipate Deaths in 2018 topping the list, and probably President Trump holding onto second. Probably there will be an assortment of films, TV, and webcasts promoting themselves, and hopefully their subjects, into the list. In a World Cup year, I would expect to see an assortment of soccer stars, although my colleague Mr. clouds is incorrect in his predictions of a 2005 recreation, as it is clearly going to be Raheem Sterling's year. Finally, there will doubtlessly be a number of names taken from the Deaths in 2018 longlist, although this is not the time to predict who the grisly reaper will be mowing. OZOO (t) (c)
 * Superhero movies, even if there are way too many next year (Aquaman on the DC side and eight Marvels - three MCU, three X-Men, two Spider-Man) for all to get into the list. Even if the United States are not going to the World Cup, the rest of the world cares enough about football to allow for big views (here's hoping Neymar doesn't get broken like last time!). And of course, the top two entries for two years running - the ones we revere dying, and The Donald doing something stupid and\or controversial. igordebraga ≠
 * Probably a similar spread as this year. Star Wars will have the spinoff film Solo to cover for The Last Jedi, and I doubt people will lose their fascination with death, politics, or sports anytime soon. The Winter Olympics should feature, and so will some of the celebrities that will have died. In terms of politics, I imagine Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and maybe John McCain will make it. A lad insane  talk
 * With Game of Thrones and Stranger Things off until 2019, and The Crown not likely to appear until December, we can likely expect movies to dominate even more strongly next year. The upcoming US midterm elections will likely generate huge interest, as will the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.  Serendi pod ous  01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

← Last year's report

Exclusions

 * These lists excludes the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.