Hi Dan,
Thanks for running these!
I'm struck by the figure of 12.8m pages in ns0 - it looks like this
includes redirects (there are ~7.6m ns0 redirects on enwiki, and ~5.2m
articles). This will probably skew things a lot, as the majority of
those will probably be edited once and never touched again, barring
the target page being moved,. Given they're ~60% of the pages, this
will introduce a lot of extra weight for "articles with very few
edits" and "articles that get edited very infrequently".
It might be worth trying to filter out redirects - I suspect this
would have a noticeable effect on both the distribution and the mean
time between edits.
Andrew.
On 14 September 2016 at 22:01, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Quick follow up 'cause I was curious. I
calculated the average and standard
deviation for edits per namespace 0 article on enwiki. I tried to do it on
the research db replicas but it took forever so I did it on the hadoop
cluster. Including archived pages isn't useful, doesn't change the results
almost at all. Including pages outside namespace 0 increases the standard
deviation and decreases the average. Here are the results:
484,170,218 edits on namespace 0
12,756,342 pages in namespace 0
standard deviation for edits per page: 213.58
average edits per page: 38.02
average days between first and last edit per page: 1215.27
So considering the standard deviation is much larger than the mean, I'm
pretty confident to answer yes, I think the vast majority of articles in
namespace 0 on enwiki get very few edits. The dataset we're working on
releasing as part of wikistats 2.0 will allow these kinds of questions to be
answered really easily and really quickly. Stay tuned over the next few
quarters :)
And the queries:
https://gist.github.com/milimetric/8b5f447e3ef09b6fe4384e0f75cc0b34
If you want to edit those queries to find something else out, I'm happy to
run them one or two more times, but then I really have to get back to my
real job :)
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
wrote:
Hi Reem,
Here's some rough estimates.
English -
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
English has ~5.2 million articles, with an average of ~92 edits per
article, not counting deleted edits (or deleted articles). Note that 80% of
those articles are more than three years old, so they've had plenty of time
to build up the 92 edits.
[The page does not explicitly say that only article edits are counted in
the tables, but this is easy to confirm -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics has 847m edits]
Arabic -
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaAR.htm
Arabic has ~437k articles, ~31 edits/article - but only half of these are
more than three years old, so they're on average a lot younger than the
English ones.
As of July there are 3.3m edits/month in English - this is equal to an
average of 0.63 edits/article/month - and 226k edits/month in Arabic, equal
to 0.52 edits/article/month. July was a slow month for Arabic, and March had
more than twice as many edits, 487k, across 415k articles.
These are plain averages. The distribution is going to be very skewed, so
high-edit articles get most of the attention, and the other articles easily
go months without attention. If we assume an 80:20 distribution - which is a
wild guess but sounds plausible - then the "long tail" of 80% of articles
would get 20% of the edits. In this case, a plausible average would be:
* English long tail, 4.16m articles and 660k edits/month = average of six
months between each edit
* Arabic (July) long tail, 350k articles and 45k edits/month = average of
seven or eight months between each edit
* Arabic (March) long tail, 332k articles and 97k edits/month = average of
three and a half months between each edit
This is a broad range, but it feels more or less right for all those
unloved pages...
Andrew.
On 7 September 2016 at 14:52, Reem Al-Kashif <reemalkashif(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
I always hear people saying that most of the articles usually receive
little
to no edits (and that is used to encourage participants to make sure
their
articles are good enough). I would like to know if there are statistics
that
support this for the English and Arabic Wikipedia.
Best,
Reem
--
Kind regards,
Reem Al-Kashif
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics