Yes, but may I also point out that one of our biggest problems on EN wiki is 
that even good faith newbies will often have their edits reverted. If you add 
uncited facts to a page you are now much more likely to have your edit reverted 
than to have someone add <citation needed> so I would suggest a metric that 
includes persistence v reversion of edits that are not vandalism.

Another issue worth measuring is the number of edit conflicts and the frequency 
that having an edit conflict triggers a newbies departure. This would require 
WMF help as I don't think that edit conflicts are publicly logged. But some 
research on this might resolve the divide between those who consider this a 
minor issue deserving only the lowest priority at bugzilla, and those such as 
myself who suspect this is one of the most toxic features of the pedia and 
reducing edit conflicts the easiest major improvement that could be made.

By contrast commons is a relatively lonely place. From my experience you can do 
hundreds of thousands of edits there without ever needing to archive your 
talkpage. It would be interesting to see some community health metrics that 
looked at how many interactions people have with other editors, whether thanks 
or talkpage messages. My suspicion is that editor retention will vary by 
interaction level, and there will be a sweet spot which is best for retention, 
above this interaction level some people finding things distracting, and below 
this level people leave  because they feel ignored.

Another metric, and probably one best derived from polling organisations who 
survey the general public would be to identify how many of our readers would 
fix an error if they spotted it. One of the arguments that our perceived 
decline in editor recruitment is a cost of quality is the theory that readers 
who are willing to fix obvious errors are finding fewer errors per hour of 
reading Wikipedia. I know that casual readers are less likely to spot typos and 
vandalism than they were a few years ago, but  I'm not sure the best way to 
measure this phenomenon


Jonathan Cardy

> On 5 Jun 2015, at 02:27, Stuart A. Yeates <> wrote:
> > Here's a list of possible metrics that we could use for measuring community 
> > health. 
> That's a great list, with some great metrics. I'd be included to add some 
> silo-breaking metrics which measure activity across projects or across silos 
> within projects:
> * Number of editors with actions/edits on more than N wikis (N=2, N=3, etc)
> * Number of editors with actions/edits on more than N namespaces on the same 
> wiki (N=2, N=3, etc)
> ...
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to