> Several people were asking about what's known as the "diameter" of Wikipedia, that is, the distance between the two articles furthest apart (the longest shortest path if that makes any sense to you). This was in fact the original goal of the project but it turned out not to be very interesting. Wikipedia has giant "tails", almost linear linked lists of articles that stretch out for 70 links. The worst offenders were the subpages of List of named asteroids as each is only linked from the previous one, and it takes about 70 links to get from anywhere to the last one. So, you find that the two articles furthest from each other are List of asteroids/145701-145800, linked to by List of asteroids/145601-145700, linked to by List of asteroids/145501-145600, and so on for 70 links until you get back to some vageuly normal article. This is far less interesting that I was hoping. Even when I special-cased out that string of 70 boring articles, a new one appeared (I think it was linked pages about administrations of Myanmar or something). Rather than special-casing out reams of articles, I decided to pick a different metric, one that better reflects the structure of wikipedia without arbitrarily removing parts of it.
It appears that the particular tail has been "cut" however.
> Several people were asking about what's known as the "diameter" of Wikipedia, that is, the distance between the two articles furthest apart (the longest shortest path if that makes any sense to you). This was in fact the original goal of the project but it turned out not to be very interesting. Wikipedia has giant "tails", almost linear linked lists of articles that stretch out for 70 links. The worst offenders were the subpages of List of named asteroids as each is only linked from the previous one, and it takes about 70 links to get from anywhere to the last one. So, you find that the two articles furthest from each other are List of asteroids/145701-145800, linked to by List of asteroids/145601-145700, linked to by List of asteroids/145501-145600, and so on for 70 links until you get back to some vageuly normal article. This is far less interesting that I was hoping. Even when I special-cased out that string of 70 boring articles, a new one appeared (I think it was linked pages about administrations of Myanmar or something). Rather than special-casing out reams of articles, I decided to pick a different metric, one that better reflects the structure of wikipedia without arbitrarily removing parts of it.
It appears that the particular tail has been "cut" however.