91–100 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for whoever named it the "Michael Jackson problem". I'm going to start using that if I ever encounter the same issue myself.
Is this not the thundering herd problem?
There's a wikipedia article on the thundering herd problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundering_herd_problem
The article needs a little love, though.
This is so impressive, to see behind the curtains of what has become the central repository of humanities knowledge, during a moment of loss of one of humanity's greats.
> during a moment of loss of one of humanity's greats. Compared to, lets say Bill Gates who's saved millions of lives? Even artistically, I'm not sure Prince was up there in the top 1% The power of marketing.....
Different people contribute differently to the betterment of mankind. That doesn't mean some contributors need to be censored away from popular culture just because you perceive their contributions to be not as important as others'.
This is so impressive, to see behind the curtains of what has become the central repository of humanities knowledge, during a moment of loss of one of humanity's greats.
> during a moment of loss of one of humanity's greats. Compared to, lets say Bill Gates who's saved millions of lives? Even artistically, I'm not sure Prince was up there in the top 1% The power of marketing.....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> during a moment of loss of one of humanity's greats. Compared to, lets say Bill Gates who's saved millions of lives? Even artistically, I'm not sure Prince was up there in the top 1% The power of marketing.....
William Shakespear didn't saved as many lives as any physician of the time. Yet here we are, 400 years after his death, commemorating the man and his work. Different people contribute differently to the betterment of mankind. That doesn't mean some contributors need to be censored away from popular culture just because you perceive their contributions to be not as important as others'.
http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive...
They mentioned 5M views within 24 hours of Michael Jackson's death. With over 3B Internet users out there, I am actually a little surprised how small the spike was. Did they only count English Wikipedia? Even so I am quite surprised. I would expect 10-20M at least. Similarly, many young people like myself have never heard of Prince, I had to look him up to find out who he truly was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay honestly am I the only one who reads "in front of a hundred million people" and thinks it actually means he was in front of a hundred million people? I don't see it as an ambiguity, it's simply a wrong statement. I'm okay with people being uninterested in (and even downvoting) a correction, but I'm baffled that anyone could read the sentence as anything other than incorrect. I mean, they even describe the weathe…
I've reworded the sentence in the post—does it work better that way? Many thanks for the feedback, everyone. :-)
They mentioned 5M views within 24 hours of Michael Jackson's death. With over 3B Internet users out there, I am actually a little surprised how small the spike was. Did they only count English Wikipedia? Even so I am quite surprised. I would expect 10-20M at least. Similarly, many young people like myself have never heard of Prince, I had to look him up to find out who he truly was.
Even in peak it's just ~800 hits per second - it shows how is irrelevant the C10k problem (yes, I know it's not exactly about hits per second, but still).
The C10k problem is absolutely not irrelevant, and certainly not because one page only saw 800rps during a worldwide event. Two things there: (1) 800rps TO THAT PAGE is the metric. The entire rest of Wikipedia was still getting traffic, and as an educated guess I would estimate raw traffic to be on the order of magnitude of 3-4krps (across editing and views). They are quite open with operations and if I weren't mobil…
How are Wikipedia articles kept consistent with each other? Say someone like Prince dies. His page will instantly change, seemingly while his portrait is still in the sky and the cannon fires. But with certain people there's a variety of connected items that need referential integrity. For instance, I can imagine Prince being on one of those lists (eg highest grossing) that has bold text for still living artist. For…
They aren't. There is no transactional/referential integrity on Wikipedia. When someone famous dies a pretty common pattern is that first the death date is added, and then in a later subsequent edit someone gets around to changing the present tense verbs into past tense verbs ("Prince is a singer..." --> "Prince was a singer...").
I can tell you all about how category normalization is maintained, though. It starts with this process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discu...