Using Wikipedia page views to explore the cultural importance of global reptiles
Introduction
Various cultural elements exert a powerful influence on how conservation attention and resources are allocated. Challenges facing species conservation projects may even be primarily social rather than biological (Kellert, 1985, Tisdell, 2014). Thus, in order to secure better outcomes for conservation management schemes – in addition to biological attributes – social and cultural variables should also be incorporated in decision making (Ladle and Jepson, 2008). Nevertheless, these attributes are often neglected in the conservation decision-making process (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001, Kellert, 1985, Stokes, 2007).
Most global and regional conservation prioritization schemes rely on quantifiable differences in the geographic distribution, population size, ecological role, and evolutionary distinctness of species (Faith, 1992, IUCN, 2014, Mills et al., 1993, Vane-Wright et al., 1991). However, species are also unequal in their contributions to human culture — in how they are perceived by, and attract attention from, humans. While a few authors have addressed this point (Cristancho and Vining, 2004, Garibaldi and Turner, 2004), the extent to which species vary in their cultural importance or impact remains very poorly studied and how these potentially affect conservation practices is mostly unknown. Nevertheless, in order for conservation actions to be fruitful they need to incorporate both traditional conservation parameters and cultural values in local to global scales of the different actors and interventions attempted.
As with other human practices, conservation may suffer from biases due to the non-randomness in human interests and affections. For example we are more interested in the well-being and prolonged persistence of big, ‘fluffy’, attractive animals (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001, Johnson et al., 2010, Ward et al., 1998), those with large, forward facing eyes (Macdonald et al., 2015), those who are more brightly coloured (Prokop and Fančovičová, 2013, Stokes, 2007) and preferably more phylogenetically (and thus morphologically) close to us (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001).
Reptiles as a group are usually less in the public eye when compared to the other groups of tetrapods, due to several potential biases and knowledge deficiencies. This may have great ramifications for their prolonged conservation. Reptiles comprise about 30% of all extant land vertebrate species (Meiri and Chapple, 2016, this issue), and are likely to have an even greater representation amongst threatened species (IUCN, 2014). Nevertheless, their representation in targeted species conservation schemes is usually much lower (Clucas et al., 2008). Here we list reptiles' representation in targeted species programs of a few global conservation NGOs, acknowledging that local conservation schemes may have different representations of reptiles. Of the World Wildlife Fund's 36 priority species or species groups, only sea turtle and ‘Asian tortoises and freshwater turtles’ are reptilian (http://wwf.panda.org). Of the 1,031 projects supported by the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund which incorporate tetrapods, only 17% include reptiles (http://www.speciesconservation.org). None of the African Wildlife Foundation's projects target reptiles (http://www.awf.org). Reptiles comprise 16% of the specific species of interest listed by the Defenders of Wildlife organization, but only 6.5% of their species up for adoption (http://www.defenders.org). While 13 of the 36 species (36%) under management by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust are reptiles, only one of the 14 species (7%) up for adoption on their website is a reptile (http://www.durrell.org). Furthermore, as compared with mammals and birds, the scientific knowledge of basic biological attributes of reptiles is much lower, and thus so is our ability to develop sound conservation practices addressing their prolonged survival (Böhm et al., 2013, Meiri and Chapple, 2016, this issue). For example, while the distributions of all other groups of tetrapods has been known for a decade now (Grenyer et al., 2006, Orme et al., 2005), only recently has a parallel effort been completed for reptiles (http://www.gardinitiative.org).
Within the ~ 10,300 recognized species of reptiles (Uetz and Hošek, 2015) there are great differences between species in the cultural representations (i.e. appearance at all in the public sphere) and importance in various cultural roles they play. Some reptile species (e.g., venomous snakes, geckos, tortoises, crocodiles) have potent roles across an array of cultural mediums — in the pet trade, as food objects, as fictional characters, as objects of fear or aspiration, etc. (Alves et al., 2009, Alves et al., 2008, Campbell, 2009, Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Nevertheless most species remain unknown beyond a few herpetology specialists. As such, there are potentially great differences in the contributions of individual reptile species to the various domains of human culture. If conservation hopes to preserve features such as the ‘aesthetic, historical, and recreational values’ of species (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005), then identifying which species contribute to those values is of fundamental importance. Previous studies have examined cultural attitudes towards particular reptile species within local contexts (Ceríaco, 2012, Ceríaco et al., 2011, Deb and Malhotra, 2001, Jones et al., 2008, Ramstad et al., 2007), yet there have been no global efforts to compare the cultural significance of reptiles. Since many conservation policies and frameworks operate globally, considering cultural value at a global scale is potentially very useful.
‘Culture’ is one of the most widely used terms in the English language (Taras et al., 2009). In the context of conservation, ‘cultural value’ is frequently applied to defining ways in which humans assign value to different species. Though useful in the abstract, it creates challenges in measuring exactly what it means and creates confusion through the various meanings of value. Here we explore page view statistics (elaborated below) extracted from the Wikipedia online digital text archive for all extant reptiles in all language editions as a measure of the prominence of an entity or idea within a given cultural context (Yu et al., 2015).
Digital text archives are an increasingly significant resource for the study of human culture and enable questions and scales of investigation that were unfeasible until recently (Aiden and Michel, 2013, Lazer et al., 2009, Schich et al., 2014). The use of these resources for studying cultural patterns relevant to conservation is beginning to be recognized but remains low (Arts et al., 2015, Correia et al., 2016). The cultural salience of reptile species could theoretically be studied in a variety of digital archives. Within this context, Wikipedia is particularly appealing for several reasons: 1) it is huge (> 35 million articles in English to date); 2) it is multilingual (287 languages including 12 with > 1 million articles); 3) it is open access and free to download; 4) it follows a standardized structure that groups information on a species together and thus avoids many of the challenges of unstructured text databases; and 5) a growing body of academic literature addresses aspects of Wikipedia's coverage (Giles, 2005, Halavais and Lackaff, 2008, Messner and DiStaso, 2013, Samoilenko and Yasseri, 2014), credibility (Brown, 2011, Miller and Murray, 2010, Wilson, 2014), contributor demographics (Wilson, 2014) and user dynamics (Yasseri et al., 2012, Yasseri et al., 2014).
Wikipedia also has important limitations in the results it can produce and biases in whose cultural information it reflects. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia skews heavily towards the Global North with respect to both content generation and usage, and New Guinean, as well as, African languages are poorly represented (Graham et al., 2014). Wikipedia contributors also tend to be a highly skewed demographic from within the Global North: English-language Wikipedia contributors, for example, are primarily male, and mostly under 29 years old (Wilson, 2014). As of 2013, 4.3 million registered users made at least one edit to all of Wikipedia, but only about 130,000 registered users made more than 100 edits (Wilson, 2014). Another significant challenge in analysing Wikipedia from a cultural standpoint is that some of its contributors are not human. A proportion of Wikipedia articles are created or edited by specialized programs called ‘bots’. As an example, one of the most active bots, called ‘Lsjbot’, has contributed various types of information to over 2.7 million articles. Results obtained from Wikipedia therefore need to be considered within this context. We therefore want to emphasize that Wikipedia should not be seen as reflecting universal values nor representing the voices of groups such as indigenous people or individuals with limited internet access.
Wikipedia provides several potential referential metrics of cultural interest or saliency of different objects, each with potential benefits and flaws. Each Wikipedia page has been created at a particular date, been edited several times by a different number of editors, has a particular length, is linked to and from other pages (within and outside Wikipedia), appears in a set of different language editions, has been viewed a particular number of times, etc. Some of these metrics are potentially very information rich. Unfortunately, many of these metrics may suffer from inherent biases due to bot activity. Therefore, for our initial exploration of these data as a source for cultural attitudes towards nature, we limited our scope of reference only to the number of page views in different language editions of Wikipedia reptile pages. We suggest that page views within a given language measure the general interest that a page attracts from the public speaking that language (with the above biases in mind). We acknowledge that page views are recorded in a way that cannot account for page queries made by bots. Nevertheless, as most page views are made by humans (http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2014-12/SquidReportCrawlers.htm) we posit that they can provide some insight as to which reptiles attract more interest in the public sphere globally.
Here, we provide a novel approach to quantify and compare one aspect of the cultural interest associated with global reptile species: the number of times individual reptile pages are viewed, in a large, user-generated, multi-lingual, online encyclopaedia. We explore patterns at the species level, as many consider species the fundamental unit of biodiversity (Wilson, 1992) and many conservation actions are designated towards individual species (Brooks, 2010). This enables us to explore i) those species that may have greater conservation value because of their higher cultural interest, and ii) cross-cultural differences in interests towards reptile species, a key attribute in unravelling many conservation challenges. We address three questions relevant to the investigations of culture and conservation: 1) which reptile species attract most cultural interest globally, 2) what biological traits characterize those species, and 3) how does the relative cultural interest in species vary across languages.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
We obtained cultural data on reptile species from two related sources: (i) DBpedia (http://wiki.dbpedia.org, version “Dataset 2014”), a repository of structured data, extracted and curated from Wikipedia, and (ii) Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org, version 2015–07), a publicly editable repository of structured data, which aims to gather structured data from diverse sources including DBpedia, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS - http://www.itis.gov), and many others. For both
Results
Extracting page views for the year 2014 resulted in 67,062 pages of Wikipedia reptile URLs with at least a single view (138 pages or 0.2% had only a single view); reptile pages were viewed a total of 55.5 million times in that year. There were 146 different language editions of Wikipedia with reptile pages in them. Median total views per species is 828.3, and mean value is 5553.3 giving a very skewed distribution of page views with respect to the species of reptile in question (Fig. 1). Eighty
Discussion
In recent years there has been a growing interest in incorporating people's attitudes towards nature while setting conservation priorities. In most cases, individual surveys were used to gain insight into people's perceptions, preferences and choices about nature (Macdonald et al., 2015, Taras et al., 2009). This approach is labour intensive, and usually limits the scope of the study. Here we use, for the first time, an online repository of user-generated content to gain insight into people's
Conflict of interest
All Authors claim no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the members of the GARD consortium for providing data on reptile distributions. We would also like to thank David Chapple, Ricardo Correia, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. JCM is supported by the Wilfrid Knapp Scholarship at St Catherine’s College, Oxford. RG acknowledges the John Fell Fund of the University of Oxford for support.
References (68)
- et al.
The conservation status of the world's reptiles
Biol. Conserv.
(2013) Repositioning zoogeography within the nature-culture borderlands: an animal geography of reptiles in southern Ghana
Appl. Geogr.
(2009)- et al.
Students' familiarity and initial contact with species in the Monte desert (Mendoza, Argentina)
J. Arid Environ.
(2012) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity
Biol. Conserv.
(1992)- et al.
Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis
Glob. Ecol. Conserv.
(2015) - et al.
Biases in the current knowledge of threat status in lizards, and bridging the ‘assessment gap’
Biol. Conserv.
(2016) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2005)- et al.
Half a century of measuring culture: review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture
J. Int. Manag.
(2009) - et al.
What to protect? — Systematics and the agony of choice
Biol. Conserv.
(1991) - et al.
Uncharted: Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture
(2013)
Reptiles used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications
Biodivers. Conserv.
Reptiles used for medicinal and magic religious purposes in Brazil
Appl. Herpetol.
Digital technology and the conservation of nature
Ambio
MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, R package version 1.15.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: a critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet
Ambio
Conservation planning and priorities
Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: accuracy and completeness of coverage
Pol. Sci. Politics
Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach
Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis
Science
Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: the influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal
J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
Folklore and traditional ecological knowledge of geckos in southern Portugal: implications for conservation and science
J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines
Biodivers. Conserv.
Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics
PeerJ
Culturally defined keystone species
Hum. Ecol. Rev.
Conservation ethos in local traditions: the West Bengal heritage
Soc. Nat. Resour.
Body-Sizes and Diversification Rates of Lizards, Snakes, Amphisbaenians and the Tuatara
Glob. Ecol. Biogeo.
Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration
Ecol. Soc.
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Nature
Uneven geographies of user-generated information: patterns of increasing informational poverty
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates
Nature
Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation
Anthrozoos
An analysis of topical coverage of Wikipedia
J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun.
The IUCN red list of threatened species
Size, rarity and charisma: valuing African wildlife trophies
PLoS One
Cited by (65)
Surveillance of coastal biodiversity through social network monitoring
2024, Ecological InformaticsSocietal extinction of species
2022, Trends in Ecology and EvolutionCitation Excerpt :The charisma of a species affects its societal salience both before and after extinction and may prolong or weaken the process of societal extinction. Charismatic species are often large, colorful, with forward-facing eyes, and phylogenetically close to humans; they are usually positively perceived, can be evolutionary outliers or otherwise behaviorally novel, but sometimes also dangerous animals [25–29]. For example, the enduring popularity of the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) has led to their use as conservation flagships [30] or as targets for de-extinction [31].
How well does online information-seeking behavior indicate public conservation orientation? Taxonomy and personal characteristics matter
2022, Journal for Nature ConservationCitation Excerpt :Here, we assessed the feasibility of using information-seeking behavior to predict public conservation orientation toward species in different taxonomic groups. We used Wikipedia pageviews as a measure of public interest in a species because: (i) it is currently the most-visited online encyclopedia (as of 2019, 20 billion mean pageviews per month); (ii) it is multilingual and multicultural (approximately 300 languages); (iii) it is open access; and (iv) it provides access frequency data for each page (Mittermeier, Correia, Grenyer, Toivonen, & Roll, 2021; Roll et al., 2016). We addressed the following three questions: (1) Is public conservation orientation toward a species associated with Wikipedia pageviews of the species? (
A digital approach to quantifying political vulnerability of protected areas
2021, Environmental Science and PolicyEvaluating public interest in protected areas using Wikipedia page views
2021, Journal for Nature Conservation
- 1
Contributed equally to the paper.