Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Mining Algorithm Reveals the Most Influential People In History

KentuckyFC writes: 'In 1978, the American researcher Michael Hart published The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, a book that became an international best seller. Since then, various others have published similar lists. But all suffer the same drawback: they are subjective list ultimately influenced by numerous cultural factors. Now data scientists have come up with a way to extract an objective list of the 100 most influential people in history using the network of links between biographical articles on Wikipedia and how they vary between 24 different language editions, including English, Chinese, Russian Arabic and so on. The researchers assume that people who are highly ranked in different language editions are influential across both language cultures and that the more appearances they make in different language editions, the more influential they are. But the actual ranking is done by PageRank-like algorithms that consider a biographical article important if it is pointed to by other important articles.

The resulting lists of the most influential men and women might surprise. The top PageRanked individual is Carl Linnaeus, the 18th century Swedish botanist who developed the modern naming scheme for plants and animals, followed by Jesus. The top PageRanked women are: Elizabeth II followed by Mary (mother of Jesus). For comparison, just under half of the top 100 most influential also appear in Hart's 1978 book. But this is just the beginning. By counting the individuals from one culture that influence other cultures, the team is able to work out which cultures have dominated others. And by looking only at people born before certain dates, they can see how the influence of different cultures has waxed and waned throughout 35 centuries of recorded history.'

10 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. objective list by dasacc22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    subjectively titled ...

    1. Re:objective list by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is that list not weighted not only by recent events, but also Euro/Ameri-centric? Seriously, Obama AND Bush in the list of most influential people in history? In terms of overall impact, they wouldn't even make the list of top 10 us presidents. Seriously, no Harry Truman? Truman was, in terms of global impact, probably the most influential US president of all time. He was the one who decided to drop the atomic bombs, he was the one that oversaw the dismantling of the Japanese empire(one of the biggest events in the past century, but one most people know nothing about it), he was the one that really started the domino theory etc. Certainly more influential than either Bush or Obama.

  2. Influence? by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An interesting study, but nothing about the rankings has anything to do with measuring being 'influential'.

    1. Re:Influence? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends on how you define influential. The winner is responsible for the name used in every culture in the world for every single living thing on Earth. Most people have never heard of him but he has certainly influence quite a bit.

    2. Re:Influence? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a good point, and there is some question about the idea of using pagerank on Wikipedia as a method for measuring influential people. For one thing, it has a bias towards most recent events. They used two different algorithms for ranking influence in the English version of Wikipedia. The first version ended up with this list: "Napoleon, Barack Obama, Carl Linnaeus, Elizabeth II and George W Bush." At least it's bipartisan.

      Another problem with pagerank on Wikipedia is the bias towards popularity. "Frank Sinatra, Michael Jackson, Pope Pius XII, Elton John and Elizabeth II." Was Frank Sinatra more influential than Michael Jackson?

      Going from that high quality single-language ranking, they tried to rank across languages. With their second algorithm, this is what they ended up with: "Adolf Hitler, Michael Jackson, Madonna (the singer) and Ludwig Van Beethoven." I really like Beethoven, but.....

      If your algorithm only matches the pre-existing ranking by 50%, that might be an indication that your algorithm isn't getting good data. In fact, the scientists involved have some doubt about the quality of their research, saying: “Our analysis shows that most important historical gures across Wikipedia language editions are born in Western countries after the 17th century, and are male”

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Is it even worth the time to RTFA? Seems flawed. by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Correct me if I am wrong, but even from the summary I get a strong suspicion this "research" is heavily flawed. I mean, the only way for "Carl Linnaeus" would be on the top spot would be if you blindly applied a sort of page-rank algorithm forgetting to only include non-standardized parts of pages. A significant percentage of Wikipedia pages on all languages are about the various species of plant or animal life, all of which have a stub which contains the link to "Scientific classification" perhaps also to "Binomial name", both of which feature Linnaeus prominently.
    It reminds me a spider my boss had built to get a few thousands of pages to construct a word frequency list, and I had to point out that it needed some work, since words like "print", "home" etc were not in the top-5 most common words of the English language.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  4. Re:Carl Linnaeus? Here's why: by Jiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's more influential than you or I, but it's not more influential than Jesus. The problem is that he's more influential in areas specifically related to the Wikipedia format.

    If every page about someone born in August contained a link to Augustus Caesar, this would conclude that he's the most influential person in history.

  5. Re:Ah, Americans by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually the only piece of actual evidence of the existence of Christ as a real person is an entry in the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus. Those histories are not originals of course, in fact they are all copies made by the Catholics. There are no shortage of changes made by those copiers including additions and changes from the original text that have been detected by comparing various copies that were altered in different ways. The only thing that makes people who know what they are talking about say Jesus probably lived vs probably did not live is the subjective opinion of a few scholars (mostly theist scholars) who studied the passages in question and subjectively think they seem like the style of Josephus.

    Given the thinking of the day it would be the most natural thing in the world for a Monk to "correct" a "mistake" in a history that failed to record the trial and death of Jesus and to patch it up with the details from their bible.

  6. Re:Jesus isn't that influential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if you aren't Christian, your civilization has probably been influenced (converted, overrun, allied) by one that was acting in Jesus' name.

  7. Re:Jesus isn't that influential by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you believe that then you believe nonsense. The lack of personal belief in the divinity of Jesus and his offer of salvation doesn't undo his enormous influence as Messiah, the subsequent spread of Christianity beyond its Jewish origin, and the enormous influence Christianity has had in turn on religion, literature, music, law, and many other aspects of life and culture across the globe.

    A non-Christian may not hold to the belief and sentiment that inspired Handal's Messiah, but the music is still played and sung. They don't cease to exist because of non-belief. The same holds true for the rest of the influence Jesus has had though the spread of Christianity.

    Christianity spread in the Roman empire despite persecution. But if you think a Roman emperor 1700 years ago was the "real power" behind Christianity, how do you explain this today? The Romans are long gone.

    China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
    Study: Christianity grows exponentially in Africa

    You seem to be underestimating the influence of Jesus.

    The Good, the Bad and the Forgiven

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell