Melbourne Storm and Wikipedia

This entry was posted by Laura on Monday, 26 April, 2010 at

The Melbourne Storm cheating controversy with their salary camp has gotten a fair amount of attention by the Australian Twitter community and in local newspapers.  Given that, I was curious to see how the Wikipedia community had responded in terms of number of edits to the Melbourne Storm article.  I took a look at the article’s history about an hour before I posted this entry.  I then counted the total number of edits by day.  Wikipedia’s history is recorded at UTC.  This is a bit important when looking at time related data…

Melbourne Storm Wikipedia Edits

Date Number of Edits
20-Apr 6
21-Apr 0
22-Apr 90
23-Apr 56
24-Apr 69
25-Apr 6
26-Apr 6

Most of the edits were made on April 22.  This was, based on UTC, the day the story broke.   Total edits spiked again on April 24.  After that, there was a huge drop off.  The story broke quickly, people edited and then after most of the pertinent details were added, they stopped editing.  Some of the drop off can probably be explained by:   (Protected Melbourne Storm: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)))).

It is an interesting bit of pattern behavior and it would be interesting to go into further depth regarding other historical editing patterns for the article and who edited the article, and if they had ever edited the article prior to this latest controversy.  That’s for another post some time in the future.

Edited to add: There is an Italian language article about the Melbourne Storm.  There have been 15 total edits to the article singe it was created on December 21, 2007.  The article had 2 edits in 2008 and 1 in 2009.  In period of breaking news around this story, there has been 1 new edit made to the article.

More edited to add: There is a French language article about the Melbourne Storm.  It was created on March 1, 2006.  There have been 27 total edits to the article since the controversy started.  There were 59 total edits to the article, including these.

Related Posts:

  • Tweets that mention Melbourne Storm and Wikipedia @ Ozzie Sport —

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Laura H and Laura, fanhistory. fanhistory said: Melbourne Storm and Wikipedia : [...]

  • Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-05-02 @ Ozzie Sport
  • Patricia Holiday

    Follow the Money…and not to where you think…
    State of Origin..Blues beaten again and again..
    NRL competition, dominated by Storm (more or less)
    Bad if you own the rights to televise both..and your viewer/revenue base is mainly in NSW….plus the fact you financially have or are supporting one of their teams..
    Nice if you could break a story like this right before SO..don't you think..having this type of publicity plus a tax audit at this time wouldn't be very helpful for any player in staying focused.
    Not saying that breaching the rules is acceptable..simply that the timing is suggestive.
    Conspiracy Theorist

  • ezemlumf



blog comments powered by Disqus