Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/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.

As usual, a gallery (#1) of dearly departed humans (#8, #14, #23, #25, #29, #32, #36, #50) raised the highest spikes of interest this year, although nothing compares to the 2016 hecatomb.

The British royal family headed by Elizabeth (#7) and Philip (#47) enjoyed its annus mirabilis, as a popular prince (#19) married an American actress (#4), reminding the world of his father's (#40) wedding to the princess of hearts in 1981, and for the oldest among us, Prince Rainier's wedding to Grace Kelly in 1956.

The British Crown remains so beloved that two recent TV series have reignited the popularity of its elders Queen Victoria (#31) and Princess Margaret (#42). We also followed a celebrity royal wedding of sorts, between Quantico actress Priyanka Chopra (#29) and the still-technically a Jonas brother Nick Jonas (#46).

Cinema fans were treated to a new crop of superhero movies, including Avengers: Infinity War (#3) and Black Panther (#6), that earned billions at the box office (#17); real-life superhumans Freddie Mercury (#5), Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (#39) and Winston Churchill (#49); the less-than wholesome antiheroes Deadpool (#27) and Venom (#30); and Aquaman, here represented by his portrayer (#22).

Meanwhile, Elon Musk (#12) was dubbed the "real-life Iron Man" as he launched his car towards Mars. Finally, the superheroes of football (#10, #26) delivered a stunning spectacle in the World Cup (#2, #48), and India (#33) celebrated its national superhero with by far the world's largest statue.

Without further ado, here is our special report for the 50 most-viewed articles in 2018. 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:

Exclusions

 * Exo (band) and BTS (band): Starting in February, when the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang brought attention to South Korea, either one or two of those K-pop groups started appearing in the Top 25 Report for a while. Then came a day where Exo had hundreds of thousands of views, most of them from desktop. A Twitter search later, turns out the EXO-Ls and the BTS Army take the Social 50 too seriously, and given Wikipedia views contribute to said rankings, they visit their group of choice's page really often to boost the article views. Gaming the system is not something we will condone!
 * Any article with mobile views over 90% (such as XHamster) or under 10% (Louis Tomlinson), because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue.

Round Table Discussion

 * General Impressions


 * 1. Which entry in the Top 50 struck you the most?
 * The (fittingly) superb performance of Freddie Mercury's article. It was a welcome surprise to be sure, but nonetheless a shock. For Mercury to crack the Top 10, ahead of any recent death, ahead of any politics, is testament to the enduring legacy of the musician, and his persistent, perennial place in the popular zeitgeist. All it took was a catalyst to reinvigorate the captivation of Wikipedians in Mercury. Given that he is my favourite artist, this is a pleasant sign, and points to the timelessness of Queen's music. It is also a welcome sign, as the biopic which inspired all the resurgent interest in Mercury outright lies at several junctures, tarnishing and diminishing Freddie's legacy. It is good to see moviegoers turn to Wikipedia – we aren't always accurate, but in this case, Wikipedia has helped stem the propagation of myths surrounding one of my heroes, while also returning him to the spotlight he so richly deserves. Seeing that made me quite happy. Similarly, I was touched by the massive amount of interest in Stephen Hawking shown by those who use Wikipedia – Stormy clouds (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An odd one, perhaps, but Donald Trump. In 2016, he got 75 million views. In 2017 he got 30 million. In 2018, he got barely 17 million. At this rate, there's a strong chance he won't be on the list next year. Given how utterly, and consciously, Trump has dominated both traditional and social media over the last three years, it is somewhat boggling that his Wikipedia views have plummeted so precipitously. There are many ways to read this trend, not all of them pleasant. Perhaps it is indicative of the essential shallowness of interest in Trump; that for all his bombast and carnival barking there is, at the core, very little interest in actual knowledge about him. On the other hand, it may indicate that Trump's followers do not view Wikipedia as a valid source of information, likely considering it just another fount of fake news.  Serendi pod ous  12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from The Greatest Showman replicating its sleeper hit status here and I, Tonya and Darkest Hour inspiring entries when the fish romance that beat them at the Oscars couldn't, how India keeps on getting more and more present, replicating how some weeks of the Top 25 Report force us to take a crash course in South Asian affairs. 2016: India itself and the yearly Bollywood releases. 2017: both plus their biggest movie and their blockbuster list which it entered. 2018: those two entries, a big Bollywood death, and an Indian celebrity along with her American husband that would never enter the top 50 otherwise! Sure, a country with over a billion people can never be subestimated. But when English, in spite of being an official language, isn't the first one of most of the population, you wouldn't expect them to have a foothold here instead of focusing on Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, etc., and even making it grow whenever possible. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't really be a surprise these days that the top two living people are both members of the British royal family and yet, it is. Elizabeth II has managed to maintain 19M views despite The Crown taking a year off. That's the power of getting one-time CSI: Miami guest star Meghan Markle to do a turn as Duchess of Sussex, I suppose. I'm not surprised to see the Marvel Cinematic Universe taking the top spots film wise, not at Cristiano Ronaldo being the top sportsperson, although I am surprised at how close to beating him Cardi B, someone whose songs I have never knowingly heard (that's my fault, not hers), came. I am surprised by the high rankings for Ariana Grande and Dwayne The Rock Johnson, two individuals who have been prominent over the year but not massively more so than many of their colleagues, but seem to have a popularity that eclipses their fellow musicians/actors. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 2. Which entry frustrated you to the greatest degree?
 * Perhaps it is because it undermines my preceding answer, but probably 6ix9ine. There are no particularly egregious examples of despicable people in the list like Charles Manson last year, and nothing that has been as inescapably irritating as the malevolent music of Ed Sheeran. However, the massive interest in 6ix9ine is symptomatic of the issues inherent in modern music, and the presence of Freddie Mercury in the report only highlights the gaping discrepancy between the calibre of music then and now. Granted, much of the intense intrigue stems from recent months, where 6ix9ine was arrested and engrossed the internet. However, seeing him elevated to the same platform as legitimately groundbreaking musicians leaves me somewhat seething – even his stage name is juvenile and disrespectful, and the less said about the aural excrement he has released, the better. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No one entry frustrated me, but the overall patterns I saw did. (see below)  Serendi pod ous  12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After a year where only the worst possible dead guy entered the Top 50 (see above), there were eight this year, double the ones from the 2016 which we note had more high-profile deaths. Sure, there were icons (Hawking, Stan Lee) and shocks (X's murder, Bourdain and Avicii's suicides, and Sridevi, both for India and we outside there seeing such a commotion), but still seems too much, specially when Aretha Franklin missed it despite being such a beloved and influential musician. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Last year I said that I was frustrated from the "seeming lack of political interest from Wikipedia users". This year I am increasingly beginning to think they might have a point. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 3. Many of the entries in the report share similarities and recurrent themes, with movies, sport, royalty, and death proving especially prominent. What did you make of these developments this year?
 * We saw royalty rise to a high position of prominence amongst the loyal subjects of Wikipedia last year, and the Windsors are fixed staples of the report each time a new season of The Crown rolls around. It will be interesting to see if the intrigue is maintained when the new cast dons the royal robes, especially with no nuptials on the horizons. Movies are a constant source of intrigue amongst perusers of Wikipedia, somewhat inexplicably, given that the standard article tells nothing outside of the plot (useless if you have seen the film, infuriating if you have not), the cast, and the reception of the film, all easily sourced outside from Wikipedia. Similarly, there exist superior channels for following sport than Wikipedia, and sporting articles often become editing battlegrounds, or are too often left deserted. Death is always going to intrigue, of course. What it ultimately says, and what was alluded to last year, is that Wikipedia is not necessarily used as the trove of knowledge that it is, but for trivial stuff and news. Unfortunate, as it calls into question the point of all the effort spent editing, but the rise of articles like Mercury, or the sheer quality of those of McCain, the Queen, and the general article for the World Cup, should bring pride to all those who edit them. In the digital age, protecting Wikipedia from vandalism and meticulously enhancing sourcing are the best way to curate and guard information, and seeing the high usage of Wikipedia, at least for me, reaffirms the utility of this mission. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just similarity. 17 entries on the list (that's a third!) are identical to last year's. And of those that aren't, we see a strong continuity of theme: high-grossing films, sportspeople, high-profile weddings and people depicted in movies or television. If anything, this year's list is even less distinctive; at least 2017 had Bitcoin. I think this bodes boring for the years ahead. Given that this year featured a game-changing midterm election, a global movement against sexual assault, and a Saudi crown prince deeply involved in two brutal wars and perhaps guilty of murder, it seems people are using Wikipedia to escape, not to stay informed.  Serendi pod ous  12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The world is screwed enough that looking for what is on the movies, TV, music and sports instead of being confronted with the reality of politics and such. And of course, the fascination for celebrity, none bigger than an actual royal family. People sometimes seem more interested in the personal lives of artists than what the celebrity produced – sure, Cardi B, Jason Momoa and Donald Glover entered simply for their successful work; but while Ariana Grande's new album and hit singles helped, the view peaks were mostly because of the engagement that ended up broken, and the death of her ex which some stupid fans blamed her for. It even has a cross with the sad affair no one can escape, death: when someone with a big following ends up dying, sometimes surprisingly even when they were over 90, people are shocked, want to make sure it happened by checking Wikipedia, and eventually remember all their accomplishments by reading the articles and everything related to the deceased. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * People like whimsical topics like movies and sport (and royalty apparently). People don't like serious stuff like politics. Can't blame them TBH. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 4. What entries do you anticipate making their way onto the list in 2019?
 * Last year, I speculated that Wikipedians would become far more familiar with the Egyptian King. Not an altogether terrible guess, if I may say so myself. In fact, I was one thuggish Spaniard away from all my predictions transpiring (something that I am still not entirely over). However, things are looking up at Anfield, so I will refrain from jinxing the Normal One again. Outside of football, it is difficult to predict. Avengers: Endgame and the final season of Game of Thrones are certain to feature prominently. Politics will also feature heavily, with the repercussions of Article 13 and Brexit being felt in Europe, and the political machines gearing up for 2020 stateside. Again, death is likely to feature – but why? Stormy clouds (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With Game of Thrones, The Crown and Stranger Things returning next year, I expect next year's list to be almost identical to last year's.  Serendi pod ous  12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Movies (Star Wars: Episode IX and most if not all superhero ones – the MCU has three movies, and there is no Ant-Man to underperform and miss it; Fox will drop two X-Men movies they delayed; and DC could surprise us with Shazam and Joker – are a given), television (as noted above, three big hitters return), any big politics stuff, high-profile dead people, some sports thing (though who knows if with Juventus, CR7 will have enough success to return?)... and in a longshot prediction, some Indian affair that will get us by surprise. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Deaths in 2019 first, probably Elizabeth II second and Avengers: Endgame in third. Ariana Grande and Dwayne The Rock Johnson both to be in there. Outside chance of the August 2019 apocalypse if that happens as prophecised by me, just now. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Add other questions here:


 * 5. What's the funniest entry this year?
 * Millennials. Seriously, English-speaking world. Grow up.  Serendi pod ous  12:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that. As one of our contributors noted, it's not a staple of education like the World Wars, which finally missed the report, so it shouldn't be getting 30,000 views daily. Yet "Millennials" is seemingly a buzzword that caught fire, mostly in a pejorative sense, and just won't go, something baffling and undeniably amusing. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that a large number of the views stem from the intricate web of links which lead to the article, but I am still always amused by the exorbitant high page hits garnered by the land of the free. I like to imagine someone seating themselves before a computer, thinking "what are these United States that I keep hearing about?". Seeing Wikipedia, a resource which we work so hard on cultivating and ameliorating, used for such trivialities, you have two options – laugh or cry. I guess that I choose the former. – Stormy clouds (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Avengers: Infinity War has the sign in the Edinburgh restaurant offering deep fried kebabs, which is funnier than any of the jokes in the actual comedy superhero film. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Prince Philip's quotes made me spit my coffee out. — JFG talk 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)