Thanks Nemo.
Here's a new version of the highly active editors graph, plus some
additional graphs for consideration:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Very_active_editors,_January-July,_2013,_2014_and_2015.jpg
(note that the Commons preview may still show the old version, so download
the
Pine W, 29/08/2015 01:00:
By the way, is there an easy way to get info on from
https://stats.wikimedia.org about editor activity levels that excludes bots?
They all exclude bots unless otherwise specified, see docs.
Nemo
___
Wiki-research-l mailing
Just a graph in case this is helpful:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Very_active_editors,_January-July,_2013,_2014_and_2015.jpg
More graphs might help to further inform the conversation, such as graphs
about VE edits.
By the way, is there an easy way to get info on from
Kerry Raymond, 25/08/2015 02:57:
It would be interesting to have some coarse characterisation of edits to
see if any growth in edit count is spread uniformly against all
contribution types or if the growth is disproportionate some way
100 edits a month does indeed have the disadvantage that all edits are not
equal, there may be some people for whom that represents 100 hours
contributed, others a single hour. So an individual month could be inflated
by something as trivial as a vandalfighting bot going down for a couple of
days
Until we can prove it is good data we should treat it as good data
is not how data works.
Absent exactly that analysis it is almost certainly a bad idea for us
to declare this to be good news; validate, /then/ celebrate.
On 24 August 2015 at 12:26, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com
I don't think Jonathan was saying we should buy a full page adin the NYT
and declare editor retention solved. I share his cautious optimism. The
*rate* of the editor decline has decreased along several metrics, and we're
seeing an intriguing uptick in 100+ editor activity.
Back in 2011, when he
It would be interesting to have some coarse characterisation of edits to see if
any growth in edit count is spread uniformly against all contribution types or
if the growth is disproportionate some way. I would suspect that the change in
the length of the article is probably a poor man’s
Hi Nemo,
Month-over-month growth isn't what I was talking about, not least because
the seasonal stuff and different month lengths override that.
What I noticed was that Jan 2015 the 100 edits count was ahead of Jan
2014, as was every month until June 2015 which was ahead of June 2014
WereSpielChequers, 15/08/2015 15:12:
With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in
June 2014 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, we
have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the
core community is looking positive.
I'm not sure
7 minutes is an average, yes?
I would agree that an editor whose hundred edits represents about 700 minutes
per month would not achieve much more in the same amount of time. But the
editors who do over a hundred edits a month are significantly skewed towards
the gnomes and vandal fighters
+1 Jonathan. I also agree that the place where HHVM is likely to have an
effect is in high-speed editing activities. This was my conclusion when I
had completed the experimental deployment to newcomers with Ori. I think a
good place to look would be edits that happen though the API. I had a
Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or less using V/E, and some,
including me in 4th place, will have been having a look at V/E after the
attention it has had recently at Wikimania, on the signpost and on mailing
lists. I'm not sure that something that barely involves 10% of a group
For anyone who's still curious, here's[1] a set of all the editors who have
made over 100 article edits on Enwiki in the past 30 days: their total
article edits, total VE article edits, and the % of total made with VE.
And the winner is... User:Hessamnia![2]
1.
So, I've been digging into this a bit. Regretfully, I don't have my
results written up in a nice, consumable format. So, you'll need to deal
with my worklogs. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015/Work_log/2015-07-09
TL;DR: It looks like there was a sudden
I feel like I should expand on my skepticism of HHVM as a mechanism for the
observed rise in active editors.
The average edit takes 7 minutes[1,2]. HHVM reduces the time to *save* the
edit by a couple seconds. 7 minutes - a couple seconds = ~7 minutes. So,
HHVM doesn't really help you edit
Yes, percentage tells a very different story to absolute counts.
Just looking at number of VE edits, I was in the top 10 with my 303 VE edits.
But as a percentage, I came in about #98 with a mere 10% of my 3063 edits. If I
had been asked to guess, I would have said about 25- 30% of my
Actually anyone who is up around the 90% is probably a “pure VE” user because
there are some actions that you do with gadgets like HotCat that are not
counted as VE but equally are not source editing either. Similarly pure-VE
people must have to grapple with Talk pages from time to time for
That is a lot more than I was expecting from my random samples, I was
expecting total V/E edits to be somewhere near 1% of mainspace edits, More
than 10% of the most active editors using it surprises me. But if you go to
100 in that list you find people doing 33 V/E edits in those thirty days -
Woo hoo! I’m #9 in the table! But seriously that’s probably less than 10% of my
edits. For that same group, what percentage of their edits does the VE
represent? I notice that #1 on the list User:Megalibrarygirl appears to be
using VE almost exclusively at the present, but started out on the
I asked her and yes the VE has made a big difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Megalibrarygirl#Using_the_Visual_Editor
(for what I said)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kerry_Raymond#Visual_Editor (for her
reply)
So, one success story!
Kerry
From: Kerry
It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in the
past month (across all namespaces): http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors
VisualEditor and Citoid perhaps? It would be interesting to see if there is
a correlation between the use of those tools and the editor population
statistics.
Pine
On Aug 15, 2015 6:12 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
With 8% more editors contributing over 100
Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be using the
Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be interesting to track
the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor by year of original signup.
Kerry
From:
Hi,
With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in June
2014 https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, we have now
had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the core
community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a
statistical
That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually using V/E
now?
I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using it, and
apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not seeing many
V/E edits.
Looking at the history of
26 matches
Mail list logo
