Quantcast

Wikipedia Stats Support Ron Paul

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Business]

If Wikipedia’s users get to determine the next president, it seems like we’ll be seeing Ron Paul in the White House; according to an analysis of four different factors, the Republican candidate is popular in just about every way.

In regards to the first of the factors – the number of people who read a candidate’s article – Compete’s Matt Pace found that only Barack Obama ranked ahead of Paul.  There’s a large gap between the two – Obama had 41,007 readers, while Paul had just 30,960 – but then again, the next closest candidate (who actually remains undeclared) is Fred Thompson (with 24,160 readers).

So, on to the next factor: minutes spent on an article.  In this respect, Paul came in first place, with 10.22 minutes.  Mike Gravel got second place with 8.83 minutes.  In terms of a share of total time, Paul also won first place, but Obama displaced Gravel for second.

The percentage of Wikipedia users who also visited a candidate’s website became another Paul-Gravel mix-up, however.  This time, Gravel grabbed the top spot, with 45 percent, while Paul trailed slightly with 42 percent.

That’s it for the factors.  Pace then calculated an average rank for each candidate, and found that Paul’s 1.5 far outdistanced everyone else’s score.  (Gravel, Obama, and Dennis Kucinich were the runners-up, if you’re curious.)

Is everyone who’s ever visited Wikipedia going to vote for Ron Paul, then?  As we all know, that’s unlikely.  Compete’s Pace points out one possible reason for these lopsided figures, writing, “Household names such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani trail rivals in this comparison.  The modest interest seen in their Wikipedia articles could be a result of the public’s general familiarity with candidates whose lives of late have played out on the public stage.”

Wikipedia Stats Support Ron Paul
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://jd-mackiewicz.blogspot.com JD

    I wonder how the wiki edits compare between candidates?

    • newmarkc

      Ron Paul has the least edits because he is so consistent between his voting record, speeches, and library. He never panders to the fashionable story of the day. Hillary has the most because we never know what to believe about her stance on the war. We have to edit her issue statement every day.

  • Tannim

    The real reason why people are spending longer time on Paul’s entries is that they are disgusted with the other candidates and are paying very close attention to the only real alternative! It’s not name recognition of the bananas, but overexposure of the GMO fruit to the point of being rotten, so people are looking for heirloom produce instead…and they find it in Ron Paul, who is talking America’s apples to Washington’s bananas.

  • John S

    Privatization of the FAA? Elimination of the CIA and IRS? Isolationist Foreign Policy? Even if you agree that Ron Paul’s views are in line with the founding fathers, in today’s America they are nothing less than revolutionary.

    Ron is living in fantasy land, and the dead Herve Villechaize has a better chance of winning the Republican party nomination, regardless of how much non-Republican support some web polls showing he has.

    I wikied him just to found out what makes him tick (Yes I Wikied Obama too). Am I alone here? I doubt it.

    • Mary M

      Seems John S. thinks the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are out of date. Ron Paul believes in strictly adhering to the covenant he has made, and will make if he is elected President of the U.S. That covenant is the Oath of Office.

      Our Constitution and Bill of Rights should not be treated like a Chinese menu by our representatives — ie., deciding whether or not to uphold any or all of the Articles and Amendments.

      As a congressman Ron Paul alway carries a pocket Constitution on him, and when any legislation is brought forth that counters the Constitution and Bill of Rights — he consistantly votes against it. That makes Ron Paul a “man of his word” to his Oath of Office.

      The problem with “Todays America” is that we don’t have enough politicians that keep their word! And, far too few who don’t uphold to their oath.

      The U.S. Constitution is not out of date –but, we have far too many people who don’t respect the freedoms that it has bestowed on us. We have far too many people who ignore, abort, and undermine its protections. We were founded on a Limited Government, with individual rights, choice and individual responsibility. Anyone who cannot abide by their Oath of Office should step down.

      Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayan Rand – John S. and see if we have not had our liberties not only threatened by terrorists, but also by politico’s who no longer uphold what our Founding Father’s bestowed on us.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom