Hi Joe, I think this project is fundamental. I'm glad you are working on it.
I have researched this topic in my PhD thesis and I went through a review of the online communities engagement literature. Few ideas for metrics: - Contributions inequality measurements (gini coefficients as a start). - Multilingual editors contributions (to see whether they see Wikipedia as a global project or prefer to focus on one language). - Core-periphery social interactions (admins-newbees, in order to detect communities more prone to mentoring) - Rate of newbies completing the first article, rate of newbies completing the first translation, etc. - Recency measures for newbies (different measures on editor retention). - Community/functional roles renewal (admin, autopatrolled, etc. to see how good a community is at renewing its core along the years). I'd be happy to further discuss the topic. At your disposal. Best regards, Marc Miquel El dv., 5 d’oct. 2018 a les 23:29, Joe Sutherland (< jsutherl...@wikimedia.org>) va escriure: > Hello everyone - apologies for cross-posting! *TL;DR*: We would like your > feedback on our Metrics Kit project. Please have a look and comment on > Meta-Wiki: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit > > > The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team, in collaboration with > the Community Health Initiative, is working on a Metrics Kit designed to > measure the relative "health"[1] of various communities that make up the > Wikimedia movement: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit > > The ultimate outcome will be a public suite of statistics and data looking > at various aspects of Wikimedia project communities. This could be used by > both community members to make decisions on their community direction and > Wikimedia Foundation staff to point anti-harassment tool development in the > right direction. > > We have a set of metrics we are thinking about including in the kit, > ranging from the ratio of active users to active administrators, > administrator confidence levels, and off-wiki factors such as freedom to > participate. It's ambitious, and our methods of collecting such data will > vary. > > Right now, we'd like to know: > * Which metrics make sense to collect? Which don't? What are we missing? > * Where would such a tool ideally be hosted? Where would you normally look > for statistics like these? > * We are aware of the overlap in scope between this and Wikistats < > https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/all-projects> — how might these tools > coexist? > > Your opinions will help to guide this project going forward. We'll be > reaching out at different stages of this project, so if you're interested > in direct messaging going forward, please feel free to indicate your > interest by signing up on the consultation page. > > Looking forward to reading your thoughts. > > best, > Joe > > P.S.: Please feel free to CC me in conversations that might happen on this > list! > > [1] What do we mean by "health"? There is no standard definition of what > makes a Wikimedia community "healthy", but there are many indicators that > highlight where a wiki is doing well, and where it could improve. This > project aims to provide a variety of useful data points that will inform > community decisions that will benefit from objective data. > > -- > *Joe Sutherland* (he/him or they/them) > Trust and Safety Specialist > Wikimedia Foundation > joesutherland.rocks > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
