Measures for Wikipedia articles related to the climate change controversy

As suggested by a recent comment by Tommaso Venturini we extracted measures like the number of reply chains, the h-index etc for several Wikipedia articles about the climate change controversy in analogy to the table presented in the previous post.

We obtain the following results:

Several measures for Wikipedia articles related to the climate change controversy (in parenthesis the rank of each article according to the corresponding indicator). These results are based on a complete dump of the English Wikipedia dated March 2010.


Note that in several cases the title displayed does not correspond to the actual title of the Wikipedia article. For example the article UNFCCC actually is called United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and can be reached via redirect from To be consistent we kept the titles as displayed in the list given in the comment of Tommaso. Furthermore, in two cases such redirects lead to other articles already on the list (Carbon emissions redirects to Greenhouse gas  and Climate variability to Climate Change); redirects do not necessary mean that the redirected title refers to exactly the same topic, but that the corresponding subject is covered inside the target article.

Regarding the measures we observe that several discussions did not have any comments at the time we collected the date for the analysis (March 2010), some of them even remain uncommented at the time we write this post. The two topics which received the largest amount of comments (among the articles analysed) in the list are the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Global warming which already appeared in the list of the overall top 20 most discussed articles. Five more topics from Tommaso’s comment appear among the 1000 most discussed articles. They are (in descending order of the number of discussion chains): Global warming controversy, Scientific opinion on global warming, Climate change denial, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Greenhouse gas. Similar results can be observed according to the h-index; the main difference is that in the first place we would find Scientific opinion on global warming, characterised by a higher number of deep discussion threads, despite the lower number of comments and users involved. The next on in the list, Kyoto Protocol, has a similar number of comments as Greenhouse gas but only about half the number of discussion chains. Also the corresponding h-index and max-depth are lower.

Finally it is interesting to note that the max-depth of the discussion about Global warming conspiracy theory is very high (17) compared to its low number of discussion chains (9) and low h-index (6), which clearly shows that in this case the large depth is unrepresentative of the entire discussion.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free