2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $7608.77Goal: $10000

Essay talk:WikiFactor

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is Wikipedia's wikiFactor? - π 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. But it's safe to guess that en.wikipedia.org's wF is the upper bound of all existing wFs. I didn't find it at wikiindex, but I'll try to think of a way to estimate it. larronsicut fur in nocte 21:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I made a rough estimate: it should be over 4,000 (see wikiFactor article). The number of 50 is just a schlafly statistic: many pages are only popular for a certain amount of time (wp:Taylor Lautner), so the slope for an overall estimate should be less steep. OTOH, the all-time populars like wp:wikipedia, wp:main, will have attracted much more than fifty times the views over the last nine years!
larronsicut fur in nocte 09:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two comments[edit]

Dear LArron, I should like to make two comments:

1) You say "Obviously, this definition doesn't work...". Could you explain why?
2) You also say "...his eponymous paper"; I would not go as far as to say eponymous, after all, it is not called the McBrideFactor. Actually, at the time I would have liked to have called it the wiki-index, in line with the h-index, but there is a web site known as wikiIndex (where I occasionally lend a hand as an administrator) so I settled for wikiFactor.

All the best, --Carl McBride (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I'm awfully sorry: the definition does work - I don't remember what I was thinking when I wrote otherwise! How often was a patently wrong statement introduced with obviously.... My apologies!
And eponymous is misleading, too - though I think of the wF as the McBride-coefficient :-)
It seems to work quite nicely - the wFCitizendium is surprisingly small
So, thanks again, I change the text
larronsicut fur in nocte 18:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Many thanks for the changes LArron. Actually, from what I have seen, a wF of 25 is pretty respectable when one looks at other wikis (it is probably better to treat wikipedia as an outlier with regards to almost any metric!). --Carl McBride (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a question: Are you generally looking only at pages in namespace main? My little graph includes the other namespaces, too. The difference isn't big, I think.
  • RationalWiki is doing alright - thought there is ample room for improvement :-)
  • I was surprised by citizendium, who should really be disturbed by their wFcitizendium - they wanted to become the new wikipedia in the foreseeable future...
  • do you have some data on the distribution of wikiFactors? It's getting fascinating :-)
larronsicut fur in nocte 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Are you generally looking only at pages in namespace main?:
Yes, for two reasons: the first is that the main namespace is, as its name suggests, the principal component of a wiki. The second reason is more pragmatic; the Special:PopularPages page provided by MediaWiki, used to glean the wikiFactor, only lists main pages. However, as you mentioned, I suspect a survey of all the pages in all the namespaces would result in virtually the same wF.
  • data on the distribution of wikiFactors?
the best source I know of to date is the Category:WikiFactor page (and related sub-pages) on WikiIndex.
All the best, Carl McBride (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That listing seems to be incomplete. Anyway, I just looked up a few, which may be of interest:
  • Conservapedia 162
  • RationalWiki 34
  • Wikinfo 25
  • Citizendium 21
Can any useful conclusions be drawn from this sort of result? Peter Jackson 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Above figures were from WikiIndex. I've now checked them. Yours is now 36, but the others are correct. Peter Jackson 10:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)