It's important to remember that these are the films that have been influential on English-speaking Wikipedia editors. 75% of editors are under 30, 90% are male. 76% of edits are to the English Wikipedia. I couldn't find any numbers but I believe there's a similar bias towards white Americans, simply based on the demographics of the US, UK, Australia, NZ, and Canada.<p>Influential films for white male Americans under 30 that also choose to edit Wikipedia? Sure.<p>To be clear, I thought this was an interesting technique and visualization. I like that it's influence by year instead of the top 100 influential films of all time, with Citizen Kane at the top.
Well done, in both data crunching and visualizing. I'd love to revisit this in 15 years and see what modern films held up. I doubt TDKR will last (even for being a decent movie). Avatar and TDK will probably continue to be notable films, as both were historic points in film.<p>The only one I was surprised to see on there was Juno. I've never seen it, is it really that notable?
A suggestion: "Most culturally prominent" works better than "most influential" The only thing Wikipedia is going to tell you is how many other Wikipedia authors cite something. A movie can have terrific influence globally but in an indirect manner, influencing a generation of writers and directors, for instance. Likewise it could have influenced a lot of people, just not people who have anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is more like a popularity contest. "Birth of a Nation", for instance, had a huge impact all across North America -- but nobody is around anymore to cite it, so it's mostly lost to time.<p>I see you've changed the title. Cool.<p>Nice work!
very few foreign films here, a large number of which have been decisively influential on even the US cinema. so, in the end, it think we understand wikipedia better, rather than understanding film history better.
Wikipedia (or someone/thing related to Wikipedia) keeps track of page visits / edits per page.<p>For example: <a href="http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/The_Dark_Knight_Rises" rel="nofollow">http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/The_Dark_Knight_Rises</a>
Following the first full-talkie "Lights of New York", the low apparent influence (using this method) of Warner's part-talkie 1928 "Singing Fool" overlooks that it starred Al Jolson, included several songs which became traditional, and made $4 million. Most studios moved to talkies within a year.<p>I'd guess that analyzing the stockmarket is easier than the endless contingencies driving WP.
Interesting manipulations of data, but a shoddy attempt at analysis. This guy needs to work on constructing meaningful variables for his interpretation. "Important" means nothing. Is he looking at popularity, and if so, what kind? How representative is the sample of Wikipedia's film pages against the total films produced? What factors led to the "influence" metrics?