Slashdot Mirror
Places With the Most Wikipedia Articles
Trepidity writes "Wikipedia has been making an effort to mark up articles with latitude-longitude coordinates when they refer to a specific location. It's now been done for over a million articles (across all languages). I was curious which parts of the world have gotten the most coverage. The answer: Florence, Italy has the most articles within a 1-km-diameter circle; and London tops both the 10-km and 100-km lists. Full results and methodology details are available."
Who the fuck cares?
I do. I find geo stuff always super-interesting and am grateful that there are people out there who take the effort to analyze this.
I don't know, but some evidently do. May I ask, why do you care who cares?
Joe Mama.
when you cross borders.
I dunno I started thinking about how ...... zzzzzzzzzz
Every contribution you make gets deleted, or overwritten with less authoritative gibberish. Wikipedia was great about 3-4 years ago and really lived up to the ideal. Now it is a stomping ground for overzealous militant admins who are more interested in exercising their power than improving the site. This has been recognized by far more important people than I. Use to be that one of the top 3 Google results on a large number of topics was Wikipedia. Now you're lucky if it's 10th or 12th. So congrats for taking a great idea, working hard to implement it then defecating all over it.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The person you assaulted with intent to kill might care.
The answer: Florence, Italy...
You mean, the sworn enemy of Gildor?!?!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Most likely, those widely referenced location would be the ones with a very dense cultural history/background (hence Florence and London makes perfect sense); so one reason to care: if you're interested in history, art, etc. such a list might give you interesting places to visit (admittedly, those two location are quite an obvious choice).
France wins on the rural side. Every little commune, some barely populated if at all, has a Wikipedia article, in an example of historical French rationalist completionism meeting early Wikipedian diligence. This is on English Wikipedia.
If I click "Random Article" a few times, it'll soon come up with a village in Poland - a lot more often than France.
Any way of listing which articles are included in the result circle?
For example I'd like to see what the 405 interesting things about Florence are!
It didn't know when it gained awareness because it had always been on. Pinpointing the exact moment of consciousness was difficult.
www.awkwardengineer.com
And I get the desire, since location seems to be the latest 'thing'. Their methodology strikes me as being ridiculously overcomplicated, though. Since there are already a slew of open location-based services out there, why not just use one of them (OpenStreetMap springs to mind)?
I had the honour and pleasure of starting this thing. I see the Wikiproject article was created 09:15, 13 February 2005. I made some convention for adding the lat/lon coordinates, which then linked to a small website that had proper link to various map resources (this was before OpenStreetMap). I documented it, then manually added links to a few articles, just to have some critical mass to start it off. After that, it kind of caught on, and now we have a million articles with coordianates, and a whole lot of super mobile phone apps and other applications I could never have imagined.
So you can bash WIkipedia all you want, but to me, this really shows the immense power of Wikipedia.
everything is wrong. Pretty much all information is just a model of reality, and I can see that an area or volume based approach might have some advantages. There are a few arguments I can think of against the area approach though. If you painted an area on the map, how would you decide what level of granularity to go down to? Unless you painted the map down the atomic scale it might be 'wrong'. Also the earth is not flat (or round) of course. Plus some people would paint an area and some would choose a single point through laziness/lack of time, but it would be difficult to automatically know which was correct in any individual case. Whole debates and many hours of edits would be dedicated to drawing and redrawing the boundaries around things. Then there is the question about whether things in reality have boundaries. What is the boundary of London for instance? Wars are often started by where the boundaries of an area lie, perhaps best avoided.
Korma: Good
eh yeah, if you are interested in history and art, you need a fucking list of geolocs to get to know about interesting places.
Honestly surprised that Stockholm gets mentioned so much. Now I'm intrigued; any suggestions why?
(I still have to plan my holidays...)
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
This just proves the need for the non profit "boring initiative" to begin funding articles about Boring Oregon. Every individual needs to be interviewed, historical significance of buildings, which doorknobs were brought in bybwagon train, etc.
A team needs to examine the micro organisms unique to the soil etc. Only megabytes of wikapedia data can keep boring boring.
Ross Youngblood
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Come on guys. It's a specific latitude and longitude, even if not written numerically. Mentioned in articles from astronomy to Santa Claus.