I'd like to believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror is gaining in popularity because Prince (as he is now) William, if he makes it to 84, will have the opportunity to end the monarchy on 14 Oct 2066, going down in history for styling himself "William the Last"...
I wish the order of presentation were different, because it starts with incorrect and misleading claims and then only later fixes its trajectory.
It starts with...
> MIT says these are history's most important people. Wikipedia says the internet disagrees.
Importance of the sort it is _eventually_ clearly talking about and attention are not the same thing.
> This peer-reviewed metric synthesizes Wikipedia presence across 25+ languages, article length, and sustained view counts over time to measure lasting global influence.
Influence of the sort it is _eventually_ clearly talking about and attention are not the same thing.
> Some of history's most consequential figures are practically invisible online
Wikipedia traffic and invisibility are not the same thing. Wikipedia and online are not the same thing.
It then continues though...
> Not because they don't matter, but because pop culture has moved on.
> Note how modern political figures dominate attention while foundational thinkers fade
> The gap reveals something uncomfortable: we've built an internet that amplifies controversy over wisdom.
Yeah, ok. This is what they should lead with. It's an important message. And they should drop the false equivalences.
Maybe. I'd propose that Louis XVI is more or less historically irrelevant. He just happened to be the king on the throne when the real historical figures came for him - Robespierre, St. Just, Danton etc., and they then were followed by Napoleon, who, no matter how you look at it, must be high on the HPI scale. Louis XIV, and even Louis XIII, seem to me more fundamentally "historical" than poor old sixteen.
A bit of an aside, but the importance ranking seems...utterly insane? Pope Francis is one of 266 Popes, and is more important than the other 265? Really? Just so happens that the Pope who served the past few years beats out literally every other Pope, including Leo X, Paul III, and Peter, and also Jesus (who is in turn outranked by Mary)?
The Historical Popularity Index (HPI) and Wikipedia pageviews are incommensurable data points.
HPI measures the global archival presence of a figure, while pageviews measure current search frequency. These quantify different variables that lack a direct logical relationship.
I wonder if there is a somewhat predictable formula for the shape and size of the tail of a "death spike" based on rankings or other factors within this study?
7 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadIt starts with...
> MIT says these are history's most important people. Wikipedia says the internet disagrees.
Importance of the sort it is _eventually_ clearly talking about and attention are not the same thing.
> This peer-reviewed metric synthesizes Wikipedia presence across 25+ languages, article length, and sustained view counts over time to measure lasting global influence.
Influence of the sort it is _eventually_ clearly talking about and attention are not the same thing.
> Some of history's most consequential figures are practically invisible online
Wikipedia traffic and invisibility are not the same thing. Wikipedia and online are not the same thing.
It then continues though...
> Not because they don't matter, but because pop culture has moved on.
> Note how modern political figures dominate attention while foundational thinkers fade
> The gap reveals something uncomfortable: we've built an internet that amplifies controversy over wisdom.
Yeah, ok. This is what they should lead with. It's an important message. And they should drop the false equivalences.
HPI measures the global archival presence of a figure, while pageviews measure current search frequency. These quantify different variables that lack a direct logical relationship.