> > I would like to drop the terms "active editor" and "highly active editor" > and replace them with "5+ edits per month" and "100+ edits per month"
I totally agree. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe looping back a little to Aaron's original question which I'm > guessing is from Shannon: we don't have a way to measure " Number of > editors who contribute 1 edit per month" as we don't have ways to > accurately identify people who use multiple accounts, IPs, etc. We do have > ways to track number of unique accounts, but that's different from number > of unique editors. Although it would be nice to know how many people edit > the projects on any given month, that's impossible to know, although maybe > Nuria and the other analytics folks would have some ideas on how to get an > approximation. > > Pine > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If we're going to have a conversation about terminology, I would like to >> drop the terms "active editor" and "highly active editor" and replace them >> with "5+ edits per month" and "100+ edits per month". There are multiple >> ways of measuring productivity, and I'm wary of the amount of prominence >> that's given to the number of edits as the primary metric of productivity. >> Also, I don't think it's clear to analytics nebwbies that "active editor" >> is a term with a specific definition rather than a general description of >> people who edit "actively" (whatever that means). I'm fine with using 5+ >> edits per month and 100+ edits per month as measures of productivity, but I >> would prefer to drop the terms "active editor" and "very active editor". >> I'd also like to see more prominence given to other metrics such as bytes >> changed and logged non-edit actions. >> >> Pine >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Erik Zachte <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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/ >>> <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 >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
