2011/2/9 Ole Palnatoke Andersen <palnatoke(a)gmail.com>om>: They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion. Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: A general dump of preference usage across all wikis would be generally useful. -Chad

See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:UserOptionStats and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25302 DieBuche On Mittwoch, 9. Februar 2011 at 22:46, Daniel Friesen wrote: On 11-02-09 01:41 PM, Chad wrote:

You're the man, my friend. On 2/9/11 2:06 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:

Awesome! Thanks! On 2/9/11 2:18 PM, DaB. wrote:

Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 23:36:12 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: sr.wikipedia: Male: 1666 Femaile: 414 All user: 78180 ru.wikipedia: Male: 80491 Femaile: 23750 All user: 620393 pl.wikipedia: Male: 12106 Femaile: 2999 All user: 414511 (nl.wikipedia – somebody asked in IRC): Male: 8977 Femaile: 1781 All user: 368815 Good night, DaB. -- Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 2B255885

Would it be possible to get this information for es.wp and sv.wp? Thanks 2011/2/9 DaB. <WP(a)daniel.baur4.info>fo>:

On 10 February 2011 06:06, Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc(a)rambler.ru> wrote: Since the vast majority of users apparently don't specify, that data wouldn't be very useful. It's only useful if can justify the assumption that people that specify have the same gender ratio as the general population (which could easily not be true - for example, women may choose not to specify because they don't want to be singled out for "special" treatment [insert obligatory xkcd reference here - I'm at work so I won't go hunting for it, but you know the one I mean] so the ratio for people that do specify would overestimate the number of men). Could we get the proportion of users with more than 10 edits that specify? It's possible that is significantly higher than for all users, in which case we could get some useful numbers for those users.

+ {{support}} :-) Make a note that Slavic languages still need to resolve some important issues: * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17160 [Add ability to show feminine version of "User:" in female users' user pages' titles] * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24156 [Messages of log enteries should support GENDER] -- Leinad

Does that include data on gadgets activated and skins used? How would one gather those? Leo On Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

2011/2/10 Daniel Friesen <lists(a)nadir-seen-fire.com> The actual statistic may not reflect what the users actually want. I have an account with a few edits in a lot of projects and when i enter them for the first since the Vector switch i see that i still have Monobook there. So this measurement should not just check the preference itself, but also when the user last logged in. If that's not possible, then at least when did the user made the last edit. That said, i am all for deprecating old skins which are barely used and gathering clever statistics about preferences and updating the defaults.

Amir E. Aharoni wrote: Then that's the opposite than me :) I changed back to monobook in the projects that matter, while I didn't bother in smaller projects, where it shows me the default (vector).

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Howie Fung <hfung(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Yep, that lines up about right with my understanding of the editor activity distribution. When someone starts editing, they are very likely to stop after one edit. -Sage

On 02/11/2011 12:24 AM, Platonides wrote: Becoming an active wikipedian is a process in many steps, each involving a large amount of hesitation. Does this article really need improvement? Can I fix it? Should I fix it? Do I know how to edit? Do I have the time right now? Should I register? After having improved the text, should I really press save, or should I just quit and forget about it? Maybe we have a million readers, and only 10% think the article needs improvement, only 10% of them think they could fix it, etc. We are losing people in every step of hesitation from reader to active contributor. It is really irrelevant in which step we lose them. We may have a million readers and we get a hundred contributors. These might be 100 out of 1,000 registered users or 100 out of 10,000 who thought about registering, or 100 out of 5,000 who went half-way through registration. The constant is 100 and the other number is quite arbitrary. Any statistic based on that arbitrary number is bound to be bad math. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On 11/02/11 00:24, Platonides wrote: <snip> My brother is always logged in but barely edit anything. The top reasons are: - he uses the watchlist - the edit interface makes it too long / too hard to correct minor typos or rephrase a sentence. - trolls I am myself mostly logged in but barely edit now a day (I prefer contributing to the MW code base). -- Ashar Voultoiz

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Lars Aronsson &lt;lars(a)aronsson.se&gt; wrote: User:Dispenser is working on something similar, I think for the next Signpost. Take a look at this (a work in progress and not mine, so please don't distribute): http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/temp/gender/total_edit_zero_2011-02-10.png The table at the left traces gender identification rates for editors with less than or equal to the listed number of edits (but more than the previous row). So the first row is editors with 0 edits, the second is editors with 1 edit, the third is editors with 2-3 edits, then 4-7 edits, etc. The last row is everyone with over ~65k edits (and less than 5,000,000). So the takeaways are: a) the more edits you make, the more likely you are to declare your gender. b) the ratio of declared females to males falls from about 20% for people who make just zero or one edit, to a stable 5-6% for people who make 1000 or more edits. Of course, as Woonpton notes, there could be factors that distort that. Maybe women who become active editors are more likely than other women to *not* declare gender. But at first glance, it would seem that the gender gap is larger among very active editors. -Sage

On 9 February 2011 23:09, Bence Damokos &lt;bdamokos(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Because it actually _is_ completely public, without any aggregation. Ask {{gender:Catrope|male|female|unknown}} on a page, and you’ll get the answer, no privacy there. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

Andrew Garrett wrote: toolserver users ‹ the view omits What are you talking about? Both user.user_options and user_properties are unavailable to Toolserver users. MZMcBride

prefstats maybe? On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote:

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen &lt;palnatoke(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't think the numbers would even tell you that. Users are not prompted for their gender, so "Unspecified" might mean a user saw the field and chose not to select anything, or it might just mean they never checked their preferences (as is likely the case for the vast majority of users).

There's a parallel talk into it chapter about gender gap. This gap is part of a larger gap involving software development in general; there are few programmer women. I presume, that this highlights a similarity between wiki and a software development environment; and really many from most enthusiast, and productive contributors are too programmers. But... as you know, the profile of a programmer is far from the profile of a woman; consider the famous statement "The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris.". Then consider the pedia statement "Be bold!", that is a gentler way to name "hubris". :-) Is gender gap so mysterious? Alex