On 29 July 2010 22:21, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia > editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be > considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot > or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are > automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been > meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion > of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with > pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).
Slightly under 10% of all edits on enwiki were by bots - that's bot-flagged accounts, not the various automatically-assisted tools. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTable.htm The proportion has crept up a bit over time, but eyeballing the chart it seems to have been stable around 9% for the last year or two. There's a recent spike indicated there - I don't know if that's an anomaly or not. Across all languages, it's 20% historically, closer to 25% as a proportion of current edits. Interestingly, it's clear that, roughly speaking, the smaller the project the higher the proportion of bot edits: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proportion_of_bot_edits_on_Wikipedia_by_overall_edit_count.svg -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
