 | |
| Author | Steven Skiena, Charles Ward |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | History |
| Published | 2013 (Cambridge University Press) |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| Media type | |
| Pages | 408 |
| ISBN | 978-1107041370 |
Who's Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank is a 2013 book by the computer scientist Steven Skiena and the Google engineer Charles Ward which ranks historical figures in order of significance. [1]
The authors used the English Wikipedia as their primary data source, and ran the data through algorithms written into computer programs to arrive at a ranking of all historical figures. According to the authors, a higher ranking indicates greater historical significance. [2]
Skiena and Ward compared all English Wikipedia articles against five criteria: two that draw on Google PageRank, and three that draw on internal Wikipedia metrics: the number of times the page has been viewed, the number of edits to the page, and the size of the page. The concept is that these criteria measure the current fame of the subject. This is then manipulated by other algorithms to compensate for a skewing of data toward more recent subjects, arriving at true likely historical significance. [2] In addition to the main list, various sublists (such as figures of a given field of endeavor or country) are included.
While the authors claim that their purely quantitative approach to the question of individual historical significance is a virtue, questions about whether the book is more than "a lot of fun" [2] and an "entertaining exercise" [1] include doubts whether an individual's historical significance can actually be quantitatively ascertained, how much the book's English sources skew it toward the history of the English-speaking world, whether fame over time is a good measure of significance, and whether attention to a subject in Wikipedia is a good proxy for overall fame. [2] [3]
While acknowledging the bias against non-Western figures and disavowing any special authoritativeness, [3] the authors make the case that their methods are both novel and useful – for instance, that historical fame and historical significance are intertwined, that fame over time has qualities in common with the fading or staying power seen in memes, and that Wikipedia metrics provide a window into what people believe matters – and that their approach, with further refinements, may prove useful in other areas. [1] Skiena described: "We do not answer these questions as historians might, through a principled assessment of their individual achievements. Instead, we evaluate each person by aggregating the traces of millions of opinions in a rigorous and principled manner... We measure meme strength, how successfully is the idea of this person being propagated through time." [4]
The top five entries on the overall list are Jesus, Napoleon, Muhammad, William Shakespeare, and Abraham Lincoln. [2]
Regarding the relative paucity of women on the list (only three of the top 100 figures are women), [5] the authors point out past barriers to women assuming historically significant roles. [6] However, critics have also postulated a bias in the underlying data source, [2] [3] [6] since only 15% of English Wikipedia editors are female. [6] The authors acknowledge this as a potential issue (the authors allow that "[T]he English-language Wikipedia is inherently culturally biased... The Wikipedia authors did not leave their prejudices at the door, so any results concerning minorities and gender reflect attitudes as well as accomplishments") [7] and in fact Skiena notes that, statistically speaking, in order to gain a Wikipedia entry a woman has to be somewhat more accomplished than a man. [3] Skiena stated: "Our methods show that for historical figures from the past 300 years, the average significance of women appearing in Wikipedia was substantially greater than that of the average man. This implies that women required greater credentials to get into Wikipedia, analogous to being about 4 IQ points smarter in the mean. Fortunately, this significance gap has closed and essentially eliminated in modern times." [3]
Statistical bias, in the mathematical field of statistics, is a systematic tendency in which the methods used to gather data and generate statistics present an inaccurate, skewed or biased depiction of reality. Statistical bias exists in numerous stages of the data collection and analysis process, including: the source of the data, the methods used to collect the data, the estimator chosen, and the methods used to analyze the data. Data analysts can take various measures at each stage of the process to reduce the impact of statistical bias in their work. Understanding the source of statistical bias can help to assess whether the observed results are close to actuality. Issues of statistical bias has been argued to be closely linked to issues of statistical validity.
The English Wikipedia is the primary English-language edition of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. It was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on 15 January 2001, as Wikipedia's first edition.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a 1978 book by the American white nationalist author Michael H. Hart. Published by his father's publishing house, it was his first book and was reprinted in 1992 with revisions. It is a ranking of the 100 people who, according to Hart, most influenced human history. Unlike various other rankings at the time, Hart was not attempting to rank on "greatness" as a criterion, but rather whose actions most changed the course of human history.
The Croatian Wikipedia is the Croatian language version of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, started on 16 February 2003. This version has 223,314 articles and a total of 7.05 million edits have been made. It has 320,902 registered users, out of which 477 have been active in the last 30 days, and 14 administrators. Throughout 2014, fewer than two dozen editors made more than 100 edits a month; around 150 made more than 5 edits a month. As of July 2024, there were about 135 editors making at least 5 edits a month. Around 750 articles are ranked as selected.
The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established volunteer users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias.
The reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is written and edited by volunteer editors, who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual unreliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; its English-language edition has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.
A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of their life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality.
Conservapedia is an English-language, wiki-based, online encyclopedia written from a self-described American conservative and fundamentalist Christian point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias on Wikipedia. It uses editorials and a wiki-based system for content generation.
A historical figure is a significant person in history.
Wikipedia has been studied extensively. Between 2001 and 2010, researchers published at least 1,746 peer-reviewed articles about the online encyclopedia. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner.
In the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, notability is a criterion to determine whether a topic merits a separate Wikipedia article. It is described in the guideline "Wikipedia:Notability". In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". The notability guideline was introduced in 2006 and has since been subject to various controversies.
An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.
This is a list of books about Wikipedia or for which Wikipedia is a major subject.
The Google Knowledge Graph is a knowledge base from which Google serves relevant information in an infobox beside its search results. This allows the user to see the answer in a glance, as an instant answer. The data is generated automatically from a variety of sources, covering places, people, businesses, and more.
Steven Sol Skiena is a computer scientist and distinguished teaching professor of computer science at Stony Brook University. He is also director of AI Institute at Stony Brook.
Gender bias on Wikipedia includes various gender-related disparities on Wikipedia, particularly the overrepresentation of men among both volunteer contributors and article subjects, as well as lesser coverage of and topics primarily of interest to women.
The English Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage. This bias partially stems from an under-representation of people of color within its volunteer editor base. In "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past," it is noted that article completeness and coverage is dependent on the interests of Wikipedians, not necessarily on the subject matter itself. The past president of Wikimedia D.C., James Hare, asserted that "a lot of [Black American history] is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors. Articles about African topics that do exist are, according to some, largely edited by editors from Europe and North America and thus, they only reflect their knowledge and their consumption of media, which "tend to perpetuate a negative image" of Africa. Maira Liriano of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture has argued that the lack of information regarding Black history on Wikipedia "makes it seem like it's not important."
Women in Red is a WikiProject addressing the current gender bias in Wikipedia content. The project focuses on creating content regarding women's biographies, women's works, and women's issues.
Ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially in its English-language edition, has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project. Questions relate to whether its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other ideologies its volunteer editors may adhere to. These all draw concerns as to the possible effects this may have on the encyclopedia's reliability.
Eran Shor is an Israeli-Canadian sociologist and a Professor of Sociology. He is the William Dawson Scholar at McGill University. His research interests include the causes and effects of political conflict and violence, ethnicity and nationalism, the sociology of health, and the media coverage of women and ethnic minorities. He focuses on the relationship between states’ counterterrorist policies and their respect for human rights and civil liberties. His research methods include computational analysis of big data, cross-national regression analysis and meta-analyses, as well as in-depth qualitative methods and content analysis.