The Signpost

News and notes

Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Resident Mario and Tilman Bayer

Most linked websites on the English Wikipedia

On his Inkdroid blog, Library of Congress coder Ed Summers published a list of the most heavily linked websites on Wikipedia. (Summers recently started Linkypedia, a tool analyzing external links on the English Wikipedia to a given web site, providing more information than MediaWiki's own external link search function – see Signpost story.) The number-one host, not surprisingly, is the Wikipedia toolserver, with 3,169,993 links; this is followed by, with 2,117,967 links.

To generate more meaningful results, a mainspace-only chart was then generated. The most frequently linked host in the article namespace is the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, with over 400,000 links, followed by the digital object identifier database at, the Internet Movie Database and

Summers also provided lists of the most linked hosts in the .edu and .gov domains, and of the 100 most frequently linked top-level domains (the three country domains of non-English language countries that are linked most often are .de, .fr and .jp).

In a related endeavour, researcher Finn Årup Nielsen compiled a list of the most frequently linked news sites, based on the usage of the {{cite news}} template.

Wiki-Conference NYC

Last weekend, Wikipedians/Wikimedians gathered at the two-day Wiki-Conference NYC at New York University. The event comprised various panels, open-space discussions, and five-minute lightning talks. Two keynote presentations were made, by author (and NYU lecturer) Clay Shirky and by the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner. Shirky's presentation was mostly based on topics from his recent book Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age (the book's review in next week's Signpost will mention a few more details from his talk). Some of his statements were taken up by Sue Gardner on the next day, who spoke on the "Role of the Wikimedia Foundation in Supporting and Building the Movement". She started by showing slides that she normally uses to introduce non-Wikimedian audiences to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and explained why she highlights certain aspects which audiences often misunderstand or don't know about. She then presented some new PR videos based on interviews with Wikimedia volunteers, produced at last month's Wikimania Conference. The audience found the videos to be well-made, although there was some concern whether the age of the interviewed persons was representative of the community as a whole. A low quality recording of Shirky's keynote is available, along with several audio recordings and slides from the talks. Better quality recordings from the live video stream might become available later.


+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
Editor note: Spelling mistake. Zomg. ResMar 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Portuguese Wikipedia wouldn't be in such a dire need of administrators if they didn't have such a stringent inactivity policy: even if an admin is actively making edits, they will lose the rights if they don't perform 50 or more administrative actions (deletions, blocks, etc) in the past 180 days. --Waldir talk 07:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, such a significant quota for using your tools CAN'T be good for making sure tools are used responsibly. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, many admins started performing administrative actions only to keep their user rights. I feel sad that I was one of the original proposers of the inactivity policy, but at the time it was about people who made no edits whatsoever in 6 months, or something. Ironically, that proposal was rejected. The new one, I believe, gained traction after many older editors grew disillusioned with the project as several newer editors started trolling the administrators, requiring votes for bold changes and then piling oppose votes, etc. These new editors used the absence/indifference of many respected older editors to drag the community into a rushed decision. But of course, this is my POV as one of the desysopped admins, so take this with a grain of salt. If you can read Portuguese, the main discussion is here. Note, however, how the "consensus" was declared with 23 support votes against 20 oppose ones. --Waldir talk 21:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there was no time to find a better layout solution. I thought about using scrollbars, but wasn't sure how it would look like in other browsers:
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say it's a good idea you didn't try that, because it pukes all over the place on IE8 here at work. The images are full size with useless scrollbars of what's supposed to be the display height on the side. It'll probably coverup this comment, too. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is and why are there 160,000 external links to it? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question was discussed on the Wiki-research mailing list, see e.g. Edward Betts' comment here: It is linked on Template:Orphan.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it is my fault :P --Waldir talk 21:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0