Hi Pratik, As far as I understand, assessing the quality of contributions & the metrics needed for it are open questions. We can be sure that edit count alone is not an effective measure.
Some of them that I have come across are: - Bytes added. - Time the edits have continued to remain in the article (Longevity of the content added) I'll send a few other relevant links when i find them. Jeph On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Pratik Lahoti <pr4tiklah...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:20 PM, jeph <jephp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> @Pratik Lahoti >> Edit count is far from a perfect measure of editor contribution :-). It >> is just one of many metrics we could use. As such it also depends on an >> editors style, small/frequent edits to few/big edits. Sorting the list by >> edit count may not present the right picture. Would love to hear what you >> think. >> >> > Yeah, you are right. That would depend on the editor style. But as a > viewer, I din't find it cool actually seeing a pattern somewhat like > 3..7...5...117...8! But again, you people have sorted it alphabetically, > which also makes sense. Makes me raise another question - If at all it > matters, how would we come to know the "top contributors" if edit count is > not the only metric? How will you be judging them? > > --Pratik > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list > Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
