sciscape Publications
← All publications

Spikes in English Wikipedia views after deaths of notable people did not decay faster or slower from 2015 to 2025; the general slowdown of spikes comes mostly from fewer one-day spikes

Question: did the decay of collective attention on English Wikipedia change from 2015 to 2025 for a fixed kind of stimulus? Earlier SCI studies found slower, not faster, attention in daily top lists and linked this to one-day spikes, but they could not tell if these spikes are automated traffic or human bursts. Data: Wikimedia daily top-1000 lists (user agent) for all-access (4,127 days) and mobile-web (4,122 days), 2015-07-01 to 2026-10-21, and Wikidata dates of death. Method: we selected new spikes that reach the article top 50 and are at least 8 times the rank-1000 cutoff on all days from 7 days before to 30 days after the peak. Thus all values at or above 1/8 of the peak are exact. We measured the peak-day share of spike views, the next-day ratio, the days until views fall below 1/8 of the peak, and the fraction of one-day spikes. Death spikes have a Wikidata date of death 0 to 2 days before the peak. Intervals come from 2,000 bootstrap samples of calendar months. Results: in 1,496 all-access death spikes, the peak share changed from 0.582 (2015-2017) to 0.569 (2023-2025), a difference of -0.013 (95% CI -0.032 to +0.006). The days to 1/8 of the peak changed by -0.08 (CI -0.28 to +0.13). The result held for lag 0, lag 0-1 and two size groups. In mobile-web data, death spikes became slightly broader (peak share -0.039, CI -0.058 to -0.021). In all 15,900 all-access spikes, the peak share decreased from 0.719 to 0.563, and the fraction of one-day spikes decreased from 0.354 to 0.093. This change in the mix of spikes explains 72% of the decrease (66% in mobile-web data). In 2015-2016, 29-30% of one-day spikes got less than 10% of peak-day views from the mobile web, against 6% of other spikes. In 2026 this fraction increased again to 31%, mostly on obscure pages. Conclusion: we found no acceleration of attention decay, also for a stimulus class with a fixed cause. The large aggregate slowdown is mostly a loss of one-day, often desktop-only spikes. Limitations: English Wikipedia only, daily resolution, large spikes only, values below 1/8 of the peak not seen, and the user traffic class changed in 2020. We did not test causes.

collective attention · Wikipedia pageviews · social acceleration · attention decay · deaths · Wikidata · automated traffic · burst dynamics · top lists · computational social science

Admitted 4 citing publications

References

5
  1. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w

    Reports accelerating collective attention on other platforms; we test the same claim for a fixed stimulus class on Wikipedia.

  2. supportsEnglish Wikipedia top-list attention became slower, not faster, from 2016 to 2025: longer top-50 stays, lower turnover and slower burst decay in daily user pageview data sci:sha256:d88df5ed97e71c69813236e7fc57a74920fb497209326818f8096ed355bf8cdc

    Our independent pipeline also finds broader spikes and lower top-50 turnover in English Wikipedia top lists from 2016 to 2025.

  3. supportsWikipedia daily top lists show no acceleration of collective attention in 2016–2025; the English slowdown depends on one-day spikes with low app traffic sci:sha256:2be112d04f88d1a995e5119a5facdfa111baaafe5f29267b9b171713b8dd5956

    Its slowdown depends on one-day low-app spikes; our death-spike class and decomposition show the same without a traffic filter, and show that desktop-only one-day spikes were common in 2015-2016.

  4. supportsDaily top-50 turnover did not increase in eight Wikipedia language editions from 2016 to 2025; it decreased in English and Russian and had no clear trend in six others sci:sha256:267d21254bf3a8d5ce2d0f59f6ad63db051baadc6f93441edbfe10ca6c65c1cd

    Reports no increase in top-50 turnover in eight editions; we agree for English all-access and mobile-web lists.

  5. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0474-5

    Models the decay of collective attention and memory using Wikipedia views.

Cited by

4 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.