James,

Yes, there is more to the story than can be told in the data that we have.
On the other hand, it seems to me that it's a bit harsh to respond like
that to WSC's attempt to share good news. Perhaps you can also think of
positive ways to interpret the data, such as that the increased speeds of
page loads may be having a desirable positive effect on the productivity of
highly active editors.

I believe that Aaron H. is working on ways to measure the "value" of an
editor's contributions. When that work is done, I hope that we'll have a
better measure for how productivity is changing over time for different
cohorts of editors.

Pine

On Sep 10, 2015 8:58 AM, "James Forrester" <jforres...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 10 September 2015 at 07:21, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A quick follow up to the signpost article of a couple of weeks ago
> > <
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_focus
> > >We
> > now have the August figures
> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm>, and August has
> > continued what we might reasonably start calling the new trend. The
English
> > Wikipedia has more editors with 100 or more live edits in mainspace than
> > for any August since 2010. Across all Wikipedias combined the figures
are
> > up almost as steeply with a near 10% increase on August 2014, though
this
> > doesn't quite get us back to 2012 levels.
> >
>
> ​Interesting data, but it's just data, not a conclusion.​
>
> Also, and a bit off-topic, "core editing community" is a pretty offensive
> term to use for "editors who make more than 100 edits a month",
> disregarding the continuing editors who make fewer than 100 edits as
> non-core regardless of the value they add to the wikis; the normal term is
> "very active editors" to avoid implicit disparagement.
>
> ​[Snip]​
>
> editors making 5 or more saves
> > ​[is]
> >  down
> > across Wikipedia generally when comparing August 2015 with 2014.
> >
>
> ​So, actually, your title​ is faulty and misleading. Instead, you could
say:
>
>    - "English Wikipedia editor numbers continue to decline but
meta-editors
>    are up",
>    - "Editor diversity falls as more edits are done by fewer editors", or
>    even
>    - "Beset by a falling number of editors, existing users of the English
>    Wikipedia feel compelled to edit still more in their desperate
attempts to
>    fix things"?
>
>
> But it's nice to have one metric be positive.
> >
>
> ​I'm not sure it is.​ What is the nature and value of these edits? Two
> editors endlessly reverting each other counts as "more edits" but adds no
> value; one hundred editors each writing a beautiful Featured Article in a
> single edit counts as less "work" than one admin reverting 101 vandalism
> edits by a single spambot. What's your next step to evaluate this?
>
>
> Yours,
> --
> James D. Forrester
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to