Closing Post

Fantasy Wikipedia 2015 was a success! Here are all its blog posts so you can navigate them:

Description / Rules:
Introduction
Rules
The Fantasy Wikipedia 2015 Draft Pool

Teams: 
Summary of Teams
Team 1: Giant Clam
Team 2: Hot Chicks and Jesus
Team 3: 50 Shades of Wiki
Team 4: Farticles
Team 5: E-Cigs in Space
Team 6: The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom
Team 7: Wiki Wiki What?!
Team 8: D's Asters

Final Analysis:
Tiered Team Performance
Performance of Undrafted Articles
Performance by Category
Performance by People Places and Things

Monthly Review Summaries:
January
February
March

Weekly: Look Ahead and Week in Review:
Ahead: 1/1-1/3
Review: 1/1-1/3
Ahead: 1/4-1/10
Review: 1/4-1/10
Ahead: 1/11-1/17
Review: 1/11-1/17
Ahead: 1/18-1/24
Review: 1/18-1/24
Ahead: 1/25-1/31
Review: 1/25-1/31
Ahead: 2/1-2/7
Review: 2/1-2/7
Ahead: 2/8-2/14
Review: 2/8-2/14
Ahead: 2/15-2/21
Review: 2/15-2/21
Ahead: 2/22-2/28
Review: 2/22-2/28
Ahead: 3/1-3/7
Review: 3/1-3/7
Ahead: 3/8-3/14
Review: 3/8-3/14
Ahead: 3/15-3/21
Review: 3/15-3/21
Ahead: 3/22-3/28
Review: 3/22-3/28
Ahead: 3/29-3/31
Review: 3/29-3/31

People Places and Things

I'm considering an alternative category for the next Fantasy Wikipedia (if there ever is one). Instead of the three that were used, I'm considering People, Places, and Things. Here are the strict definitions:

Person (a living person; e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Kim Jong-Un)
Place (a named place on Earth you can visit; e.g., Wichita or Lake Michigan, but not the Moon).
Thing (anything not above, including dead people or groups of people such as Michael Jackson or Koch Industries (corporations are not people))

Most of the articles in Fantasy Wikipedia 2015 were Things. Here is a summary of how these articles performed, by category:

Person: This was the category with the highest points, by far. The players expected this during the draft. 77% of "Person" articles were drafted compared to 33% of Places and 39% of Things.

Place: The least popular category, with only 33% drafted, but with higher average points than Things.

Thing: The lowest scoring category, but since there are so many, and their variance (standard deviation) was higher than Places, they were more popular, with 39% drafted.

Here is how the teams did against the "undrafted" articles:

Pretty reasonable; the teams did a slightly worse job in the "Thing" category, though, where there was the lowest performance. I checked on this to see if perhaps there was a reason that teams had to select the lower scoring "Thing" articles. Most likely, it's because they are consolidated in the "Business, Science, & Technology" category, where each team had to have at least two articles:

It makes sense that "Place" articles would be exclusively in the "Geography, Politics, Religion, and History." The only "Place" in Business, Science, & Technology is Silicon Valley, which was one of the best articles in Business, Science, & Technology. The two "People" in Business, Science, & Technology are Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates, one of which scored perfect due to his association with the Oscars, and the other which was -5 points. This goes with the theme above that there is high variance among "People" articles.

Next time, even if I don't use these categories, I will make sure to control for person/place/thing as well as the categories above. E.g., rather than having Apple, Inc. and Facebook, I could have used Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg.

For the record, here are the counts of articles by team:

2nd place Hot Chicks & Jesus strongly favored People, while 50 shades of Wiki and The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom all had over-representation on Places. Both 1st place Farticles and 8th place Wiki Wiki What?! had a high number of "thing" articles.

Here is average article performance by person/place/thing and team:

Category Performance

Here are some details on the Fantasy Wikipedia 2015 categories.

There were three categories in Fantasy Wikipedia 2015. The chart below shows the average point value for articles in the draft (regardless of whether they were selected by a team or not):

A few points from this chart: 

Geography, Politics, Religion, and History was the easiest category for players to find points. It had the most points per article on average, and the lowest standard deviation among articles. 

Arts, Entertainment, and Sports was an important category for the drafters to get correct: it had the highest deviation among articles. This means that there was a big difference between the good picks and the bad picks.

Business, Science, & Technology was the "hard" category. It had the lowest average point value, and not very high standard deviation either. There were not many opportunities in this category.

The chart below shows how the teams' "drafted" articles performed against the "undrafted" articles:

The drafters showed the most "improvement" on Arts, Entertainment, and Sports. This category has the highest difference (18.1) between the average drafted score (15.7) vs. average undrafted score (-2.4). This is probably unsurprising; this is the category with the highest variance (see previous chart).

The other two categories are about the same, in terms of "improvement." The highest points were left behind on Geography, Politics, Religion, and History, but this is also where there was the most opportunity. In general, the players favored this category with their picks: 53% of articles from this category were drafted, but only 44% of articles from the other two categories were drafted. The players rightly saw that there was a lot of opportunity in this category. 

Last, here is average article performance, by team and by category:

Undrafted Articles

In the last post, I mentioned that our teams did better than the remaining articles that were not drafted.

In particular, the 5 best articles from each category were all drafted. You have to go down to the top 10 to see missed opportunities.

Here are the Top 10 articles from the draft, by category and total points. Undrafted articles are in red:

Top 10 Articles from Arts, Entertainment, and Sports

Fifty Shades of Grey: 67.5 points; 50 Shades of Wiki
Taylor Swift: 62.5 points; Giant Clam
Jurassic Park: 53.5 points; Farticles
Michael Keaton: 53.5 points; The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom
Reese Witherspoon: 53 points; Hot Chicks & Jesus
Julianne Moore: 32.5 points; 50 Shades of Wiki
Clint Eastwood: 29 points; The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: 14.5 points; Undrafted
"Weird Al" Yankovic: 13 points; Undrafted
Stephen Colbert: 7.5 points; E-Cigs in Space

Top 10 Articles from Business, Science, & Technology 

Stephen Hawking: 67.5 points; Hot Chicks & Jesus
Bank: 60.5 points; Farticles
Google: 42 points; The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom
Eclipse: 29 points; Hot Chicks & Jesus
Silicon Valley: 23 points; Farticles
Giant Clam: 19 points; Giant Clam
Periodic table: 15 points; Undrafted
Frog: 13 points; Undrafted
Tesla Motors: 11 points; Wiki Wiki What?!
Koch Industries: 9.5 points; D's Asters

Top 10 Articles from Geography, Politics, Religion, and History 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 67.5 points; Farticles

OPEC: 46 points; Farticles

Israel: 36 points; E-Cigs in Space

Ebola: 35.5 points; D's Asters

Kim Jong-Un: 32.5 points; 50 Shades of Wiki

Iraq: 32 points; The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom

John Boehner: 28 points; D's Asters

War on Terror: 28 points; Undrafted

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: 25 points; 50 Shades of Wiki

Quantitative Easing: 23 points; E-Cigs in Space

Also worth noting is that the Main Page of Wikipedia had a good performance at 18 points. It was one of the uncategorized articles, and it did not get drafted. The full list of the undrafted articles' scores are below:

Arts, Entertainment, and Sports

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: 14.5 points = (6) + (4.5) + (4)

"Weird Al" Yankovic: 13 points = (4) + (6) + (3)

Art: 3.5 points = (2) + (1.5) + (0)

Kentucky Derby: 2 points = (0) + (0) + (2)

Samuel L. Jackson: 2 points = (-2) + (0) + (4)

ESPN: 1 points = (0) + (0) + (1)

Elvis Presley: 1 points = (0) + (-3) + (4)

Michelangelo: 1 points = (0) + (0) + (1)

Scrabble: 0.5 points = (0) + (1.5) + (-1)

Michael Jackson: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Yoga: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Captain America: 0 points = (-8) + (0) + (8)

Mario: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)

Batman: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Sesame Street: -2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (-1)

The Simpsons: -2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: -3.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (0)

Johnny Cash: -4 points = (-4) + (0) + (0)

Great Pyramid of Giza: -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Jabba the Hutt: -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Minecraft: -6 points = (-2) + (-3) + (-1)

Vincent Van Gogh: -8 points = (-8) + (0) + (0)

Charlie Chaplin: -8 points = (-2) + (-6) + (0)

Bigfoot: -9 points = (-2) + (-3) + (-4)

Louis C.K.: -10.5 points = (-8) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Cops (1989 TV Series): -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

Pharrell Williams: -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

Business, Science, & Technology 

Periodic table: 15 points = (4) + (3) + (8)

Frog: 13 points = (-2) + (0) + (15)

Goat: 6 points = (0) + (6) + (0)

Extraterrestrial life: 2.5 points = (-2) + (4.5) + (0)

Light: 2 points = (0) + (0) + (2)

Goldman Sachs: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Harvard University: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Sun: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Thomas Edison: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Giant Panda: 0 points = (-2) + (0) + (2)

Charles Darwin: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Nose: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Time: -0.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (1)

Microsoft: -0.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (1)

McDonald's: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)

Tide: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)

Dinosaur: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Bee: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Coca-Cola: -2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Jellyfish: -2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Root: -3.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (0)

Earthquake: -3.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (0)

Dolphin: -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Boeing: -5 points = (-4) + (-3) + (2)

Cold fusion: -5 points = (-4) + (0) + (-1)

Bill Gates: -5 points = (-2) + (-3) + (0)

Cannabis (drug): -5.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-2)

Great Barrier Reef: -9.5 points = (-8) + (-1.5) + (0)

YouTube: -13 points = (-8) + (-3) + (-2)

Internet: -16 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-2)

Geography, Politics, Religion, and History 

War on Terror: 28 points = (6) + (12) + (10)

David Cameron: 21.5 points = (16) + (1.5) + (4)

Nigeria: 12 points = (4) + (0) + (8)

California: 10.5 points = (8) + (1.5) + (1)

China: 7.5 points = (4) + (1.5) + (2)

Egypt: 7 points = (2) + (3) + (2)

George W. Bush: 6.5 points = (2) + (1.5) + (3)

Texas: 4.5 points = (0) + (4.5) + (0)

War on Drugs: 3 points = (0) + (0) + (3)

Antarctica: 3 points = (-2) + (6) + (-1)

Paris: 2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (4)

Boston: 2.5 points = (0) + (1.5) + (1)

Ronald Reagan: 2 points = (2) + (0) + (0)

Shanghai: 1 points = (0) + (0) + (1)

Mexico: 1 points = (0) + (0) + (1)

Beijing: 1 points = (-2) + (0) + (3)

Brazil: 1 points = (0) + (0) + (1)

Chicago: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Mafia: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Milwaukee: -1 points = (0) + (0) + (-1)

Adolf Hitler: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)

Aung San Suu Kyi: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)

War on Poverty: -2 points = (0) + (0) + (-2)

United States: -2.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Lake Michigan: -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Abraham Lincoln: -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

India: -7.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-4)

Russia: -14 points = (-8) + (-6) + (0)

Other

Main Page: 18 points = (8) + (6) + (4)

List of internet phenomena: 3.5 points = (2) + (1.5) + (0)

Beer: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Champagne: -0.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (3)

Portal:Current Events: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Bead: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Beard: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

Hipster (contemporary subculture): -4.5 points = (-2) + (-1.5) + (-1)

Sexual Intercourse: -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

B: -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

Bean: -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

Tiered Team Performance

How did we do? I've split up the teams into three "tiers" to help explain our performance.

Tier One

Farticles

The winner, Team Farticles, is in a league of his own. He even would have beat a hypothetical "dream team." A "dream team" is a collection of the best articles that the drafting algorithm predicted. Farticles got 269.5 points against 262 for the "Dream Team."

Here is Farticles:

Jurassic Park: 53.5 points = (16) + (22.5) + (15)
OPEC: 46 points = (16) + (15) + (15)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 67.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (15)
Bank: 60.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (8)
NPR: 11.5 points = (4) + (4.5) + (3)
American Football: -1.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (0)
Netflix: 9 points = (8) + (0) + (1) (benched in February)
Silicon Valley: 23 points = (16) + (3) + (4)
Barack Obama: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0) (benched in January and March)
Assassination of John F. Kennedy: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0) (benched all 3 months)

The "Dream Team," the best team that the algorithm would have picked, is:

Ebola: 35.5 points = (-2) + (22.5) + (15)
Benedict Cumberbatch: -13.5 points = (-8) + (-1.5) + (-4)
Jurassic Park: 53.5 points = (16) + (22.5) + (15)
OPEC: 46 points = (16) + (15) + (15)
Mitch McConnell: 12.5 points = (-4) + (1.5) + (15)
Taylor Swift: 62.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (10)
Comet: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)
Stephen Hawking: 67.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (15)

You wouldn't expect anyone to do as well as the "Dream Team." The Dream Team's articles were taken early in the draft, since these articles were expected to do well. They shouldn't all end up on a single team, and you wouldn't think anyone could outperform the hypothetical best team. Farticles did.

Another way to understand the scope of the Farticles victory is to compare the team to the best possible team. If, during the draft, you had perfect knowledge of what would happen, and nobody competed against you for the best picks, how would your team do? The "Perfect Team" is below:

Jurassic Park: 53.5 points = (16) + (22.5) + (15)

OPEC: 46 points = (16) + (15) + (15)

Taylor Swift: 62.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (10)

Stephen Hawking: 67.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (15)

Fifty Shades of Grey: 67.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (15)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 67.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (15)

Bank: 60.5 points = (30) + (22.5) + (8)

Michael Keaton: 53.5 points = (16) + (22.5) + (15)

Some of those articles should look familiar. 4 of the 8 articles on the "Perfect Team" were on Team Farticles. The other 4 were split, one per team, to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place teams.

Tier Two

Hot Chicks & Jesus

The Google, the Veto, and the Mr. Mom

50 Shades of Wiki

The next three teams scored between 163.5 and 204.5 points, well above Tier Three (at most 103.5 points) and well below Tier One (269.5). All three of these teams were pretty well balanced, with 50 points in at least 2 out of 3 categories:

Within the tier, you can see the differences in their performance by their worst category. 50 Shades of Wiki, in 4th, got -4 points from Business, Science, and Technology. Both other Tier Two teams had Geography, Politics, Religion, and History as their worst category, but with 50.5 and 40 points respectively:

Tier Three

Giant Clam

D's Asters

E-Cigs in Space

Wiki Wiki What?!

The remaining teams scored between 33.5 and 103.5 points. with the 5th and 6th place very close to 100 and the bottom two at 57.5 and 33.5.

These teams had at most one strong category. D's Asters is the best example: his team got 83 of his 97.5 points from Geography, Politics, Religion, and History with John Boehner, Pope Francis and Ebola. E-Cigs in Space also relied on this category, with 40 points in March from Israel and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Giant Clam got more than half his 103.5 points from Taylor Swift. 

The last place team didn't have a great category or standout article. His team's best article Tesla Motors, only scored 11 points. This was actually very good for the Business, Science, & Technology category, but not enough to bring him out of 8th place.

So, now that we are at the bottom of the performers, should we make fun of Wiki Wiki What?! Was his team's performance just atrocious?

Actually, no. Overall, all 8 teams did well, and no great articles were left undrafted. The "undrafted" articles will be covered in another blog post, but you can get a sense from the artificial "Dream Team Remaining" here. This is what would have happened if a 9th team had joined the draft at the end, and picked up the best 8 articles according to the algorithm:

War on Terror: 28 points = (6) + (12) + (10)

"Weird Al" Yankovic: 13 points = (4) + (6) + (3)

List of internet phenomena: 3.5 points = (2) + (1.5) + (0)

Goldman Sachs: 0 points = (0) + (0) + (0)

Time: -0.5 points = (0) + (-1.5) + (1)

Portal:Current Events: -2 points = (-2) + (0) + (0)

War on Poverty: -2 points = (0) + (0) + (-2)

Cops (1989 TV Series): -18 points = (-8) + (-6) + (-4)

Alternatively, would Wiki Wiki What?! have beat a team that was deliberately drafted to be mediocre by the algorithm, or would it have a beat a team with the "average" undrafted articles? Compared to these "artificial" teams, the 8th place team does very well:

The 33.5 points for Wiki Wiki What?! looks downright respectable against the 22 points from the "Dream Team Remaining" and the "Medicore Goal Team," to say nothing of the 2.5 team with the most average articles.

Month in Review: March

Fantasy Wikipedia comes to a close: Farticles has won! This post will focus on March's results, with a recap on the entire season to follow later this week.

The final team rankings are below:

1. Farticles, 269.5 points (+120 from February)

2. Hot Chicks & Jesus, 204.5 points (+96 from February)

3. The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom, 175.5 points (+62 from February)

4. 50 Shades of Wiki, 163.5 points (+30 from February)

5. Giant Clam, 103.5 points (+46 from February)

6. D's Asters, 97.5 points (+6 from February)

7. E-Cigs in Space, 57 points (+36 from February)

8. Wiki Wiki What?!, 33.5 points (+4 from February)

Articles in detail:

In general, few articles moved in March. Here are the highlights:

U.S. Politics: The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal broke this month, giving 20 points to E-Cigs in Space for Hillary Rodham Clinton. John Boehner jumped from 0 points last month to 20, giving a boost to D's Asters. And Antonin Scalia came in from 50 Shades of Wiki's bench to come in for 8 points.

Middle East Politics: Iran went from 1.5 points to 16 points for Hot Chicks & Jesus, and Israel went from 12 to 20 for E-Cigs in Space. A lot happened in both places this month: Israel's elections came after a high profile visit from Prime Minister Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress. Iran's nuclear program was the center of diplomatic discussions in Switzerland. They became big news in the United States after GOP Senators sent a letter in the midst of negotiations.

Science! Giant Clam, the flagship article for Team 1 (aka "Giant Clam"), rose from 0 points in February to 16 in March, probably due to an article in the prestigious journal Nature about using giant clam fossils to determine prehistoric light patterns. Along the lines of light patterns, this year's total eclipse of the Sun brought Eclipse from 0 to 30 points for Hot Chicks & Jesus.

Tech and Tech Companies: 
Silicon Valley increased from 3 to 16 points, possibly due to the trailer for the HBO TV show "Silicon Valley," and possibly due to the Ellen Pao sexism case that ended in March. Another win for Farticles. Netflix jumped from 0 to 8 points for no discernible reason except to cement the victory for Farticles. Google and Apple, Inc., both on The Google, The Veto, and The Mr. Mom also had modest increases: Google from 12 to 20 and Apple, Inc. from 1.5 to 8.

Other:
Quantitative Easing gave another boost to E-Cigs in Space, going from 0 to 8 points.
The big last-minute surprise was the sudden jump for Hot Chicks & Jesus's Reese Witherspoon from 0 to 30 points on the last day on March. Oddly, this was not the only article to have massive increases in pageviews on March 31. Eiffel Tower, on team Giant Clam, also skyrocketed in pageviews and would have resulted in 30 points for Giant Clam if it had not been on the bench. This replaces Beck as the most unfortunate bench decision in Fantasy Wikipedia.

Sustained strong articles:
The other main contributors to points this month were articles that have also done well in previous months: 50 Shades of Wiki's Fifty Shades of Grey (+30), Giant Clam's Taylor Swift (+30), Hot Chicks & Jesus's Stephen Hawking (+30), The Google, The Veto, and the Mr. Mom's Iraq (+16) and four articles on team Farticles: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (+30), Bank (+30), Jurassic Park (+16), and OPEC (+16).

To follow up from last month, we never resolved Fantasy Wikipedia 2015's greatest mystery: the inexplicable increase in pageviews for Bank. To add to the mystery, by the end of March, it has declined back down to its pre-Fantasy Wikipedia levels.

Last Week: 3/29/15-3/31/15

Article: Reese Witherspoon

Category: Arts, Entertainment, and Sports

Owner: Hot Chicks & Jesus (Team 2)

Pageviews in March 2014: 148,975

What happened: Pageviews for Reese Witherspoon increased dramatically on the last day of Fantasy Wikipedia. Typically, the actress's Wikipedia page gets just over 3,000 pageviews per day, but on March 31, pageviews increased to 379,010. This is great news for Hot Chicks & Jesus (Team 2), as this provided a sudden +30 points just before the end of the competition.

It's hard to tell why Reese Witherspoon got so many more pageviews. Looking through the news, the actress has been active on Instagram. She posted photos from her Spring Break. She just celebrated her anniversary. If I had to guess, I'd say that some people in Tennessee are excited that she may be opening a hotel in Nashville.