--- El vie, 14/11/08, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" > Para: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fecha: viernes, 14 noviembre, 2008 2:29 > Hi Felipe, > > > > I can’t follow your reasoning how bots are insignificant. > > Just as Ziko pointed out, the matrix of bot contributions > (and our general > experience) tells otherwise. > > On larger wikipedias bots account for 5-30% of edits on > smaller wikis > anything up to 50-70% or even more in rare cases. > >
Mmmm, then we have something really strange going on here. I thought I had a graph of the evolution of bots edits share with respect to the total number of edits by month, but I think I have to generate it again. However, my "impression" looking at temporal tables and results was not that high. Actually, I'm not the only one who stated that. Nikki Kittur, in another good paper: http://www.parc.com/research/publications/files/5904.pdf Pointed out the same, though for enwiki (and we haven't got figures to compare that). All in all, I think this does not affect our results or model since, as a bare minimum, I always add a "where rev_user not in (select ug_user from user_groups where ug_group='bot')" in my base queries. I will try to post a graph soon to have quantitative arguments, rather than mere "impressions". Perhaps I'm missing something, but if so, I could not say, right now, what. > > Think of the bots that add interwiki links as primary > example of activities > that account for massive amount of edits. > That's precisely why I was quite suprised/concerned about my findings. They are counterintuitive. > These may be insignificant on popular articles with > 1000’s of edits, but > most articles have very few edits, ‘the long tail’ one > might call it and > there it adds up. > Yep, dead right. Just right now, I'm not concentrating on "per article" statistics but "per user" ones. Best, F. > > > Cheers, 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
