Yes, I would also love to see these stats without Bot edits. We currently calculate them ourselves for Wikidata, where we gleam much more interesting and informative data than when we include the bot-edits. I would love to be able to compare that to the Wikipedias.
I also assume that the March-Spike was due to Wikidata bots, and that the following reduction on a very low level is due to the language links edits not being necessary anymore, but I would love to see this confirmed with actual data instead of gut feeling and interpretation.
Cheers, Denny
2013/7/23 Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org
I was poking around on stats.wikimedia.org and reportcard.wmflabs.org to see if I could find out how overall editing levels had changed (if any) over the past year. Unfortunately, it seems that all of our "edits per month" graphs show all edits, including bot edits. Since changes in bot editing levels are often dramatic from month to month, this noise effectively cancels out the usefulness of the graphs. For example, you can see a huge spike in March when I presume the Wikidata bots were running at full force: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/**#secondary-graphs-tabhttp://reportcard.wmflabs.org/#secondary-graphs-tab http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#3http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#3
My question is: Would it be possible to replace or augment these graphs with graphs that exclude bot edits? I know that bot status is not stored in the revision table, so this would be quite expensive to tally. Would it be prohibitively expensive? Sorry if this is a dumb question.
Ryan Kaldari
______________________________**_________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/analyticshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics