Hi Milos, You might want to read this signpost article from 2015 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_focus> that talked about the rally in very active editors from EN wiki's 2014 nadir. Another interesting measure of the rally, *Time between ten million edits * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits>was hitting 73 days in late 2014 and is now back down to about 60.
Of course what we don't know is how much of the perceived decline was down to the edit filters and therefore how much of the increase in the last couple of years is simply because the easy wins for edit filters have been achieved; Or how much of the decline was due to the rise of smartphones and tablets where Wikipedia is much more of a broadcast medium with comparatively few editors. Jonathan/WereSpielChequers Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 03:32:24 +0100 > From: Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Very good news! > Message-ID: > <CAHPiQ2GZdSg7vGYGwKdRqrPcn9+_2BcYcWHGfoXHenUujVeYGA@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This is an extraordinary news for us! For almost 10 years I was hoping > to see that and, finally, I've seen it! > > In short, it seems that we reached the bottom in participation in 2014 > and that we are now slowly going upwards. > > My claim is based on the analysis [1] of the Eric Zachte's > participation statistics on English Wikipedia [2], but I am almost > sure that the rest of the projects more or less mirror it. But, > anyway, I encourage others to check other projects and other relevant > factors and see if their results correlate with what I have found. The > reasons for the change in trends should be also detected. > > If we are looking Eric's statistics from 2010 onwards, it is not > immediately obvious if we are going up or down. We reached the peak in > 2007 (German Wikipedia somewhat earlier, other projects later, but > English Wikipedia is approximately 50% of our activity and its weight > is too strong for other projects to balance our overall activity). > After that peak, we went down as quickly as we reached the peak. Then, > in 2010, the trends flattened. > > However, it was not a stagnation, but barely visible recession. > However, that "barely visible recession" removed approximately 20% of > the very active editors in the period from 2010 to 2014, while the > "visible one" -- from 2007 to 2010 -- was also approximately 20%. At > that point of time, in 2014, the next 10 years would for sure drive > Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement into insignificance. > > Comparing such data is also tricky. It's not just necessary to compare > the same months (January 2010 with January 2011, 2012 etc.), but there > could be "freak" months, which are not following general trends. > > That's why I used two methods: One is coloring the months by place in > comparison to the months of the previous years. The other is average > number per year. > > There are at least a couple of important conclusions: > > 1) Negative trends have been reversed. > > 2) Both 2015 and 2016 were not just better than 2013 and 2014, but > even better than 2012, while 2016 is just a little bit worse than > 2011! > > 3) December 2016 was even better than December 2010! > > 4) I could guess that the period June-November 2016 was worse than the > same period in 2015 because of the political turbulence. Without them > -- as May and December 2016 likely show -- 2016 would be not just > better, but much better than 2015 and maybe even better than 2010. > > I would say that the reversal is still fragile and that we should do > whatever we've been doing the last two years. Yes, detecting what > we've been doing good (or bad) is not that easy to detect. But, yes, > better analysis of all of all of the processes should be definitely > done. > > I hope that this shows that we are at the beginning of our > Renaissance, Wikimedia Renaissance and that the Dark Wikimedia Age is > behind us! So, please join me in enjoying that fact, even I could be > wrong. It definitely sounds definitely amazing, even it could be just > my imagination! :) > > [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IXYoTI_nCBhhuJAknH5KL450_ > D3V67KWTHuoEAh6540/edit?usp=sharing > [2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm > > -- > Milos > > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
