On May 22, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Erik Zachte <ezachte@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Historically consistent? Hmm, the article's main story is about how historical in-wiki data are unreliable and a periodic recount is needed. Just saying.
by “historically consistent” I mean not subject to arbitrary changes making measurement foo at time t1 incommensurable with foo at time t2. Aaron and I put a good deal of thinking into how to avoid recounts or issues due to arbitrary software configuration changes.
And the main theme in comments is “do we care about article count?"
agreed. I added a note in the comments on work related to quality assessment.
-----Original Message-----
From: analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dario Taraborelli
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 21:38
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
Subject: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
From this week’s Signpost, worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_focus
this is a great illustration of why we need stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements to report the growth of Wikimedia projects (and particularly why the legacy definition of a “countable” article is ridiculously problematic):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Refining_the_definition_of_monthly_active_editors#Principles
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization
Dario
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics