One of the lovely things about the
interwebs is stumbling across a website that is informative or interesting, but
inherently useless. One of my favourites among these fascinating but pointless
sites is listverse, a website that
specialises in providing “Top Ten” lists of the most gruesome murders, hidden
secrets of Egyptian Pharaohs, things you didn’t know about the fast food
industry and so on.
The damn thing is a time sink, I just went
over there to check some examples of lists and spent 20 minutes looking through
“10
Mind-Blowing Things That Happened Last Month”. Number one on that list is
that the town of Tisdale in Canada had to drop
the town slogan that it had been using since 1958. The slogan, “Tisdale: the land of rape and honey”
referred to the main products of the region, rapeseed being an older name for
canola.
Even better than these sites though are the
lesser known sites that are just as fascinating. A few years ago while
compiling a quiz for a company offsite meeting, I came across this list of the most visited pages on
wikipedia. It’s not the most user-friendly of sites, which makes it even
more fun for me - kind of like discovering an exceptionally good restaurant in
a little visited country town - but it provides some interesting insights.
Wikipedia is published by language, the
version you mainly see is simply the English language version, with over 280
different languages for “active” wikipedias.
The English wikipedia is by far the
largest, with over 30 million users looking at over five million articles. From
second place down though, the question of which wikipedia is the ‘biggest’ is a
vexed question indeed. You can consider the number of articles, the number of
users, the number of edits and all sorts of other measures to come up with a
judgement, but it’s unwise to depend on just one of these factors.
For example, measuring by number of
articles, the second largest wikipedia is the Swedish language wiki and the
third largest is the Cebuano language wikipedia. Cebuano is a language spoken
by about 20 million people in the Philippines and I expect that there are a
great many Cebuano speakers that spend far too much time on wikipedia.
Measuring by number of edits gives German
second and French third, which seems a bit more sensible and measuring by
number of active users gives German second and Spanish third.
Wikipedia has also helpfully determined a
metric that they call “depth” which
they consider a measure of article quality rather than overall bigness of the
wiki in question. Measuring by this attribute, the highest quality wikipedia in
the world is the one in Ripuarian, a German
dialect spoken by a little under a million people in the Rhineland area. Coming
in at fourth place is the Old Church Slavonic wikipedia which has only 10
active users. Old Church Slavonic is a dead language that was spoken from the 9th to the 11th Century (as if you didn't know!)
An interesting curiosity is the Hebrew
wikipedia which has a relatively small number of articles (less than 200,000)
but an enormous number of edits (almost 20,000,000). I’m going out on a limb here,
but I suspect that these folks might actually enjoy having an argument.
To come back to my original topic, which
was the most popular articles on the various wikipedias, if we start with the
English version, we can see the following as the top ten;
Two of these entries struck me immediately;
the list of Bollywood films coming in at fourth place and the entry on Chris
Kyle coming in ninth place. Chris Kyle for those of you that don’t know is the
real life American Sniper on whom the film is based.
Why the list of Bollywood films comes in at
4th on the list is anyone’s guess but might well say something about the
increasing influence of our friends on the subcontinent (hello Satya, Dylan and
Neeraj!). Anyone with a theory is encouraged to share it in the comments below.
The top ten list for foreign languages
becomes interesting and I wonder whether the respective lists say something
about speakers of that language? Once again, feel free to share your own
theories.
To start with, most of the foreign language
wikipedias feature an entry for the main country speaking that language and
generally it’s pretty high up the list. The German wikipedia has Deutschland as
number 2, French wiki has France as number 1, Japanese wiki has Japan as number
5 and so on. Portuguese wiki has Portugal as number 10, but has Brazil as
number 2 and that probably makes sense for them, although the entry for
Coca-Cola comes in at number 1 and I can’t help buy wonder what that says about
the Portuguese (or perhaps the Brazilians).
The curiosities for me are the ones where a
national country does not feature. The Chinese wikipedia for example has the
entry for China coming in at number two and has the entry for Japan at number
10 on the list. At first place on the Chinese wiki is a Korean game show and at
fourth place is a list of porn stars. Perhaps this says something about Chinese
priorities. That Korean game show by the way, is also number 1 on the
Vietnamese wikipedia.
The top three places on the Italian
wikipedia are all taken up by television series, which definitely says
something about Italy.
The Dutch wikipedia top ten makes for
interesting reading with the top three entries being Amsterdam, The Netherlands and
The Hague, just to demonstrate how self-obsessed the Dutch are. In sixth place
on their list is Belgium, which I suspect our Dutch speakers will tell me demonstrates
that they are interested in the rest of the world too. In fourth place on the
Dutch wiki is the entry for “Paper Size”. As for what that tells you about
our Dutch cousins, I have no idea.
And a handy tip for those of you planning
to explore the wonderful world of foreign-language wikipedias for yourself;
when you click on the link for the foreign language wiki, you will be taken
through to the page in that language (of course). You can generally find the
English language version by clicking on the link for English on the left hand
side of the page as shown here;
Hello back at ya. Though I'm technically not "on the continent" so much as "from the continent".
ReplyDelete