On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Add to this the complexity that several barnstars are subst:ed rather >> than transcluded -- but not all -- and you end up with a completely >> intractable problem. >> > > Bah humbug. > >
Quite a few researchers have published quantitative analyses of barnstars, e.g.: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/July#cite_ref-7 (analyzed 21,299 barnstars awarded to 14,074 editors on the English Wikipedia) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/August#Briefly https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-04-30#Recognition_may_sustain_user_participation Yes, some of them could probably have enhanced their datasets by taking e.g. talk page archiving into account, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
