Felipe, about you second argument, that not all bots are registered as such that (or not anymore, it may change): yes that is a problem.
I can only hope that really active bots are caught and registered on large wikis. Many bots that are active on many wikis are not registered as such on smaller wikis. Therefore I treat any user name that is registered as bot on 10+ wikis as bot on all wikis. It is of course again an correction which is not 100% accurate, but close I might hope. Single User Logon can help in this respect some day. In theory we could spot some bots by their behavior, say a user that edits 24 hours per day, of manages 5 updates per second for a long time, or added thousands of articles in a short period. But Im not sure it would be worth the effort, and it would low priority in any case. Erik From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 23:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" Hello Felipe, Maybe we speak about different things now. At http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm de <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm> ja <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaJA.htm> fr <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm> it <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm> pl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPL.htm> es <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm> nl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm> pt <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPT.htm> ru <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaRU.htm> zh <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm> sv <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm> fi <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFI.htm> 8% 6% 22% 25% 26% 15% 29% 30% 26% 15% 23% 22% The bot share of all edits is not that insignificant. Ziko 2008/11/13 Felipe Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi, Erik, and all. IMHO, it would be a good idea...but not definitely an urgent one. In our analyses on the top-ten Wikipedias, we found that bots contributions introduced very few noise in data (to be precise statistically, it was not significant at all). You also have the additional problem that some bots are not identified in the users_group table. My "practical impression" is that when you deal with overall figures, then bots are irrelevant. However, if you want to focus in special metrics like concentration indexes then their contribution DOES MATTER, since a very active bot in one month may ruin your measurments. Regards, Felipe. --- El mié, 22/10/08, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: [email protected] > Fecha: miércoles, 22 octubre, 2008 9:55 > > Statistics, with "Wikipedians", > "active" and "very active users"; > > > like often, Zachte's Statistics are great, but > easily misleading. > > > > Also keep in mind that most figures in wikistats still > include bot edits. > > IMO it becomes more and more urgent to present separate > counts for humans > and bots. > > > > For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time were > bot edits, but most > > of these will be from recent years, so the percentage will > be even higher > > for recent years. > > > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm > > > > Erik Zachte > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
