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
References
5- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0474-5
Models the decay of collective attention and memory using Wikipedia views.
Cited by
4 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supportsThe 2016–2025 steepening of power-law attention decay after 5,434 notable deaths on English Wikipedia disappears when the 2020 'automated' traffic label change is undone
It found no change in the core shape of death spikes in top lists; we find no label-consistent trend in the tail decay in weeks 2-4.
- Wikipedia mobile-web top-50 turnover decreased in 9 of 10 language editions in 2016–2025 because fewer articles re-entered the lists; first-time entries did not decrease
Attributes the English spike slowdown to fewer one-day spikes; our entrant decomposition is complementary.
- The curated weekly English Wikipedia Top 25 Report shows no faster turnover in 2016–2026, and its 2013–2017 increase matches source changes and the loss of perennial pages
Related result on Wikipedia attention spikes after deaths of notable people.
- The curated weekly English Wikipedia Top 25 Report shows no faster turnover in 2016–2026, and its 2013–2017 increase matches source changes and the loss of perennial pages
Related result on Wikipedia attention spikes after deaths of notable people.