Do you have any more useful or meaningful metrics?

-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Forrester
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015 5:52 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase in size of the core editing community

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>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4409/10601 - Release Date: 09/08/15


_______________________________________________
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