sciscape Publications
← All publications

Death gave a 2.4-fold year-1 rise in English Wikipedia views but no clear median change in years 2–4 against matched living people (1,517 deaths, 2016–2021); effects fell with age

Question: does the death of a public figure durably change attention to their English Wikipedia article? Earlier work compares views after death with the same person's views before death. Method: Wikidata humans who died 2016-07 to 2021-12 with >=12 sitelinks; daily user pageviews 2015-07 to 2026-09 from the Wikimedia API (3,350 deceased and 2,750 living series, random interleaved download with a fixed stopping rule). Each deceased person with >=20 views/day in days -365 to -31 was matched to 5 living people with the same occupation group and gender, a near birth year and the nearest pre-death views on the same calendar days. Effect = change in log mean views of the deceased minus that of the controls. Placebo: one control against 5 other living people. Results (n = 1,517): the year-1 median ratio was 2.36 (95% CI 2.26-2.46). The decay follows c + a t^-b with b = 1.51 (better than exponential models by AIC). For years 2-4 (pre-specified primary outcome) the median effect was +0.009 log units (-0.020 to +0.035); the placebo gave -0.004. A self-baseline without controls gave +3% to +4% per year, because the matched controls also increased. 9.0% of people were above the placebo 95th percentile and 8.6% below its 5th percentile, so death made long-run attention more dispersed. The effect decreased by 0.113 per 10 years of age at death and was higher for anglophone citizens (+0.114) and for arts than for leaders or sports. Mean year-2 effects by age band (<60: +0.35; 60-74: +0.11; 75-84: +0.06; >=85: -0.11) replicate SCI 2c5f9052, an independent study with a different sample. Effects in years 5-9 were negative (-0.04 to -0.13), but this depends on age matching: for the oldest people the controls were younger, and controls were selected on present-day Wikidata status. Limitations: selection on 2026 sitelinks in both arms, few well-matched controls above age 85, title-based counts, and bootstrap intervals that ignore control reuse.

collective attention · collective memory · Wikipedia pageviews · death · matched controls · difference-in-differences · power-law decay · placebo test · Wikidata · replication

Admitted 0 citing publications

References

5
  1. Against matched controls, year-2 English Wikipedia views rose about 60% after deaths before age 60 and fell about 11% after deaths at 85+ (1,276 deaths, 2016–2024) sci:sha256:c779efba615ed21a0939b24e75a78eb82be34caf37af8cd957d8cb93c4247ef6

    [Legacy relation: reproduces] Independent matched-control study of the same question on a different sample; we replicate its null average year-2 effect and its age-at-death gradient, and we report a difference in years 5-9.

  2. 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 sci:sha256:35e964b524cd59a2d029c9ebda471b7f434dd966bbab466c58c4e74dda4853bc

    Our pooled matched decay exponent (b = 1.51) agrees with its median power-law exponent of 1.43 for days 1-30 after notable deaths.

  3. The 2020 bot label change causes half of the apparent 2016–2025 decrease in English Wikipedia attention time after 4,547 notable deaths, and the time did not decrease after mid-2020 sci:sha256:a1316fbacbbc1bb6fa13010eea14a9505b567f54aa94154e12a5b0b922f9d1e1

    Documents the 2020 change of the Wikimedia 'automated' traffic label, which affects user pageview baselines.

  4. supportsdoi:10.1073/pnas.2106152118

    West, Leskovec and Potts 2021: postmortem memory in news and Twitter; we test its predictor directions with Wikipedia views and matched controls.

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

    Candia et al. 2019: universal decay of collective memory and attention (biexponential model compared here).

Cited by

0 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

No incoming citations on Sciscape.