It might be interesting to look at when the 500-edit requirement was put in place for certain articles that were targeted by off-site editing groups, and whether that correlates with anything. It looks like the number of new articles peaked some time ago.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < [email protected]> wrote: > Kevin, > > 2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on > at least one count numbers have been rising since then > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_focus>. > The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are > unrelated to the arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the > number of editors saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in > 2015, September's figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September > figure since 2010 <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>. > >5 edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the > same month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger > group than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there > wasn't a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote. > > > On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election >> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't >> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics. >> >> Best, >> Kevin Gorman >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm >> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half >> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of >> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last >> >> year. >> > >> > >> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, >> although I >> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might >> reflect the >> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize >> do >> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so >> to >> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion >> amongst >> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution >> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to >> care who >> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a >> greater >> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote. >> > >> > Daniel Case >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gendergap mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> > visit: >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
