Hi Erik, Thanks for the charts,
The pattern though not the quantity of declining reverts since the 2007 peak certainly fits the theory that as the anti vandal bots and edit filters have got more efficient so our level of vandalism has fallen. As well as the theory that the drift to mobile is turning us from an interactive medium to a broadcast one. But I don't buy the idea that reverts are less than 1% of mainspace edits. Looking at a few random screens of recent changes in recent days I always see at least 1 revert in far fewer than a hundred mainspace edits. Is it possible that your stats are only picking a subset of them such as not including reverts by bots, or those that using undo rather than rollback? One of the changes in EN Wikipedia has been the increase in non-mainspace article edits, in particular the promotion of Articles for Creation and in future the draft namespace as places for creating new articles. Also userspace, when I train newbies I always advise them to start new articles in sandboxes rather than run the gauntlets of NPP or AFC, I doubt I'm the only one who does this. Am I correct in assuming that these statistics look at edits according to their namepace at the time when the statistics run? If so it would be more accurate if we could include articles for creation within mainspace. Otherwise one of the skews that will be in the data will be the extent to which we steer new article creators towards AFC, and of course the stats at any one moment in time will be skewed towards some very recent edits being in AFC or sandboxes, whilst the same edits from earlier months will now count in mainspace. It would also be good to know whether these are surviving edits or total edits. We have a very large number of articles deleted on the English language wikipedia every day, and the de facto standards for deletion are probably rather more deletionist than in 2007. The only big policy change I can remember that effects this is the decision to make unreferenced new BLPs a 7 day deletion criteria, but if these are surviving edits as opposed to raw ones then one of the factors in the change will be the extent of deletionism PS I really like the way those charts show the bot spike in early 2013 when the intrawikis moved to Wikidata Regards Jonathan > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:07:08 +0100 > From: Mark <delir...@hackish.org> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users > Message-ID: <52d9a98c.8070...@hackish.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 1/17/14, 3:55 AM, Erik Zachte wrote: > > Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories, > reverts are counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it > could be indicative of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing > reassesment of metric definitions one thing discussed is whether we should > count productive editors separately (I think we do), and if so on what > basis (e.g. x edits per week/month which survived y days of not being > reverted). > > > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm > > > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
