User Profile

star70
description79
message149

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Wikipedia pageviews: still in decline

8mo
3 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
21

Wikipedia usage survey results

1y
35 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
17

The great decline in Wikipedia pageviews (condensed version)

3y
27 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
11

[QUESTION]: Academic social science and machine learning

4y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
17

How deferential should we be to the forecasts of subject matter experts?

4y
9 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
3

Scenario analyses for technological progress for the next decade

4y
12 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
13

Communicating forecast uncertainty

4y
17 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
6

Recent Comments

I tried looking in the [IRS Form 990 dataset on Amazon S3](https://aws.amazon.com/public-datasets/irs-990/), specifically searching the text files for forms published in [2017](https://s3.amazonaws.com/irs-form-990/index_2017.csv) and [2016](https://s3.amazonaws.com/irs-form-990/index_2016.csv).

I ...(read more)

In my experience, writing full-fledged, thoroughly researched material is pretty time-consuming, and if you push that out to the audience immediately, (1) you've sunk a lot of time and effort that the audience may not appreciate or care about, and (2) you might have too large an inferential gap with...(read more)

FWIW, my impression is that data on Wikipedia has gotten somewhat more accurate over time, due to the push for more citations, though I think much of this effect occurred before the decline started. I think the push for accuracy has traded off a lot against growth of content (both growth in number o...(read more)

If you have more fine-grained data at your disposal on different topics and how much each has grown or shrunk in terms of number of pages, data available on each page, and accuracy, please share :).

In the case of Wikipedia, I think the aspects of quality that correlate most with explaining pageviews are readily proxied by quantity. Specifically, the main quality factors in people reading a Wikipedia page are (a) the existence of the page (!), (b) whether the page has the stuff they were lookin...(read more)

Great point. As somebody who has been in the crosshairs of Wikipedia mods (see ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#User:Inlinetext] ) my bias would push me to agree :). However, despite what I see as problems with Wikipedia mod culture, it r...(read more)

Great points. As I noted in the post, search and social media are the two most likely proximal mechanisms of causation for the part of the decline that's real. But neither may represent the "ultimate" cause: the growth of alternate content sources, or better marketing by them, or changes in user hab...(read more)

The Wikimedia Foundation has not ignored the decline. For instance, they discuss the overall trends in detail in their quarterly readership metrics reports, the latest of which is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Readers_metrics_Q4_2016-17_(Apr-Jun_2017).pdf [https://...(read more)

They still show up in the total comment count :).