And to add, we are not alone in using a definition that requires repeated actions within a month for a user to be counted as active - just happened to see this:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2015/09/were-changing-our-name-back-to-stack-overflow/ "The [Stack Exchange] network as a whole has more monthly 5-time posters than English Wikipedia has 5-time monthly editors." (ouch!) On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Erik Zachte <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pine, > > > > > I think that the definition on Special:Statistics makes more sense for > "active editors" than the >=5 definition than is commonly used in > discussions on mailing lists. > > > > tl;dr 'active editor' is a term with a long history. If we recoin that > term and keep informing the public how many active editors we counted we > will make our public stats more vain and empty. > > > > Long version: > > > > This is a recurring discussion, with minor variations. > > > > In my personal opinion our movement has a tendency to publish too extreme > numbers already, however bloated, as if our more substantial achievements > aren't awe-inspiring enough. > > (examples are 'Wikipedias in 280 languages', '800 wikis', not to mention > our extreme 'article' counts) > > As long as we keep these extreme counts with little substance for > ourselves I wouldn't care much about terminology, but we tend not to keep > these for ourselves. > > > > Can I illustrate my point by reductio ad absurdum (sort of)? > > Would you call a person who jots his name on a paycheck once a month and > writes nothing else a writer? > > Would you call a person who climbs three steps to enter a bus a climber? > > Are you a reader if you glance at a glossy's cover once at your local > barber? > > > > A person with one edit in one particular month and maybe none in the rest > of the year to me is not much of an editor really. > > It's one more person who knows of Wikipedia (we have 500+ million of > those) and found the edit and submit buttons and tried those, to see what > happens. > > Now if that person likes what happened and wants to do it again we are on > to something. > > The threshold of edits a person should reach before we can infer intention > and motivation is of course arbitrary, but clearly more than one in my view. > > > > I'm not saying we shouldn’t count one-off's. If people get deterred by one > problematic edit that is hugely relevant. And the enormous gap between 1+ > and 3+ edits is of course a major concern. > > I would just prefer a different term rather than 'active editor', which is > what you suggest to adopt. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Erik > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Pine W > *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 23:29 > *To:* A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has > an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. > *Subject:* Re: [Analytics] User statistics for video marking ENWP 5m > article milestone > > > > Aha, I just figured it out. The two pages are using very different > definitions for "active editors". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics refers to anyone who has > made a *single* edit in the last 30 days as an "active editor", while > https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm refers to edits that > have made *5 or more* edits in the past month as active. This mix of > terminology is confusing. I think that the definition on Special:Statistics > makes more sense for "active editors" than the >=5 definition than is > commonly used in discussions on mailing lists. Can anyone suggest a better > set of terminology to distinguish the >=1 "active editors" from the >=5 > "active editors"? > > > Pine > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Next question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics shows > that ENWP alone has had 123,512 active editors (5 or more actions) in the > last 30 days. But https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/ shows that for June > 2015 (the latest data available there), there were only 31k active editors > on ENWP and 77k active editors for all projects combined. > https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm > seems consistent with the latter, showing that for August 2015 there were > 30,789 active editors. Is there an explanation for the large difference > between the 123,512 active editors shown on > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics, and the 30,789 active > editors shown on https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm? > > > > Thanks, > > > Pine > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks! > Pine > > On Sep 11, 2015 11:20 AM, "James Forrester" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 11 September 2015 at 11:13, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Analytics, > > On ENWP, does the number of 26,163,773 users > > You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics "Registered > users"? Assuming yes… > > include IPs who have made edits? > > No. > > Does it include editors on all Wikimedia projects > > No. > > > > or just those who have registered and/or edited on ENWP? > > Registered, regardless of having edited. > > > > J. > > -- > > James D. Forrester > Lead Product Manager, Editing > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > > [email protected] | @jdforrester > > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
