Aaron,
Yeah my analogy is arguably imprecise. And for your analogy, you assume that the public astronomy database is guarded Nupedia style, with credentials. Could be, explicit mention of this assumption would resolve ambiguity ;-) > Our licensing asserts that they must be attributed. Sure these people who did one edit must be attributed whenever the page they edited is published somewhere else. But do we ever do that for real these days? Seems like a dead clause from a distant past, expect for our onwiki history page. Also giving credit is something else than counting, and publishing that count as some meaningful metric (not saying that you want to do that, but others will find the factoid and run with it) We can discuss semantics. But when a person writes one word a year we wouldn't call that person a 'writer', do we? Words lose their meaning if their definition is stretched in extremo, beyond common sense, beyond what any audience assumes those words mean. Long ago we found that a huge amount of registered users made not even one edit. One explanation might be that many people habitually sign up, just out of habit. Or that they want to tweak the UI (e.g. red links in preferences). My point: count as you like, but could we avoid using a term with so many connotations for these edge cases, so as not to confuse people even more about our metrics? Erik From: Analytics [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Halfaker Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 16:55 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: Re: [Analytics] Fwd: follow-up on editors Erik, I appreciate pushing back on just looking for bigger metrics, but there's something more important when it comes to measuring people who contribute at least a little bit. Our licensing asserts that they must be attributed. After all, they have contributed something. Also, for your astronomy comparison, this would be more like saying that anyone who contributes to publicly recorded astronomy observations is an astronomer -- even if they have only done so once. In my estimation, that doesn't sound crazy. Your comparison to "looking at the night sky" is a lot more like reading Wikipedia. -Aaron On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Erik Zachte <[email protected]> wrote: About 'Number of editors who contribute 1 edit per month?' I'm hoping we're not going that use that number for our next fundraiser ;-) The more inclusive our numbers are, the less meaningful, bordering on alternative facts. A person with one edit in any given month is as much an editor as a person who looks at the night sky a few times a year is an astronomer. We have billions of those on this planet! Erik From: Analytics [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Neil Patel Quinn Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 23:06 To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics. Subject: Re: [Analytics] Fwd: follow-up on editors Funny story: I noticed that Aaron's graph has the 1-month new editor retention on enwiki at about 7%, while I had recently done some queries <https://github.com/wikimedia-research/2017-New-Editor-Experiences/blob/master/analysis.ipynb> that put it a little under 4%. It turns out I made an error in my Unix timestamp math, and I was looking at the 12 hour new editor retention rate. It'll be interesting to see if the ranking of wikis by retention changes significantly when I correct that. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enwiki.monthly_user_retention.survival_proportion.svg On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: Here's a graph of the retention rates of new editors in English Wikipedia. _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics -- Neil Patel Quinn <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF> , product analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
