>. 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. On my opinion (knowing little about ecosystem) I think this matters little. Any online service that relies on authentication (facebook, gmail) deals with accounts rather than individual people. I does not seem that counting "physical beings that edit" versus "accounts that edit" will make the meaning we decipher from numbers such us "5+ edits per month" significantly different.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
