I appreciate pushing back on just looking for bigger metrics, but there's something more important when it comes to measuring people who contribute at least a little bit.  Our licensing asserts that they must be attributed.  After all, they have contributed something. 

Also, for your astronomy comparison, this would be more like saying that anyone who contributes to publicly recorded astronomy observations is an astronomer -- even if they have only done so once.  In my estimation, that doesn't sound crazy.  Your comparison to "looking at the night sky" is a lot more like reading Wikipedia.


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Erik Zachte <> wrote:

About 'Number of editors who contribute 1 edit per month?'


I'm hoping we're not going that use that number for our next fundraiser ;-)

The more inclusive our numbers are, the less meaningful, bordering on alternative facts.


A person with one edit in any given month is as much an editor as a person who looks at the night sky a few times a year is an astronomer.

We have billions of those on this planet!





From: Analytics [] On Behalf Of Neil Patel Quinn
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 23:06
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
Subject: Re: [Analytics] Fwd: follow-up on editors


Funny story: I noticed that Aaron's graph has the 1-month new editor retention on enwiki at about 7%, while I had recently done some queries that put it a little under 4%.

It turns out I made an error in my Unix timestamp math, and I was looking at the 12 hour new editor retention rate. It'll be interesting to see if the ranking of wikis by retention changes significantly when I correct that.


On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Aaron Halfaker <> wrote:


On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Halfaker <> wrote:

Here's a graph of the retention rates of new editors in English Wikipedia.  



Analytics mailing list


Neil Patel Quinn, product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

Analytics mailing list