Haifeng ,
While some suggests the dumps or notice boards, my immediate thought was
a database query, e.g., through Quarry. It just happens that Jonathan T.
Morgan has created a query there:
https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/310
SELECT user_id, user_name, user_registration, user_editcount
Let's do it.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:04 PM Pine W wrote:
>
> Leila, can we discuss this off list?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:29 PM Leila Zia wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:56 PM Pine W wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
Leila, can we discuss this off list?
Thanks,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:29 PM Leila Zia wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:56 PM Pine W wrote:
> >
> > Hi Leila, I believe that I asked for more information regarding Heifeng's
> > work.
>
>
There are thousands and thousands of editors with multiple accounts.
Those who have been bothered to add a category are listed at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_alternative_accounts
Many editors who engage in outreach are advised to create new accounts
for themselves
Yes, thanks for the clarification Stuart. I don't know of any statistics to
suggest how widespread this is, but it might be worth checking, especially
if you are focusing on editors with higher edit counts (who I suspect are
more likely to have multiple accounts for licit reasons).
On Tue, Mar
Note that this code deals with accounts, not editors, which is what
Haifeng asked for.
There are many reasons, both licit and illicit for editors to have
more than one account. I know I have more than ten for
policy-compliant reasons.
cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:56 PM Pine W wrote:
>
> Hi Leila, I believe that I asked for more information regarding Heifeng's
> work.
You stated
"However, if you're planning to send surveys or messages to them,
sending them barnstars, or otherwise manipulating their on-wiki
experience, that would
Hey Haifeng,
If you decide to process the dumps, you should be able to easily repurpose
some quick code that I wrote for a similar project:
https://github.com/geohci/miscellaneous-wikimedia/tree/master/editor-turnover
Notably, I'd suggest using the stub history dumps as they are much smaller
Hi Haifeng, thanks for the information. I think that your idea of looking
in the dumps makes sense. Am I understanding correctly that you would like
advice regarding how to do that in the most efficient way?
Hi Leila, I believe that I asked for more information regarding Heifeng's
work. There has
Pine and Stuart,
I meant extracting a random sample of new editors (month by month) from
Wikipedia edit history.
It is not about survey of new editors, but still thanks for your suggestions.
Thanks,
Haifeng Zhang
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Human-Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie
There are a number of new-editor-heavy noticeboards. I would suggest
posting an invite there to your survey (or whatever) If you ask for
editor's usernames you can filter out those who don't meet your
definition of 'new'
I'm thinking of places like:
Hi Pine,
Haifeng has a simple question about how to sample editors other than
via dumps. It would be great if someone who knows the answer to help
them to move forward.
If you are interested to learn more about their research, instead of
answering their question, my recommendation would be to
Hi, can you expand on what you mean by "sample"? If you're referring to
analyzing users' edit histories then that should be fine. However, if
you're planning to send surveys or messages to them, sending them
barnstars, or otherwise manipulating their on-wiki experience, that would
be problematic.
Hi folks,
My work needs to randomly sample new editors in each month, e.g., 100 editors
per month.
Do any of you have good suggestions for how to do this efficiently?
I could think of using the dump files, but wonder are there other options?
Thanks,
Haifeng Zhang
14 matches
Mail list logo
