From this week’s Signpost, worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/In_foc...
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_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization
Dario
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.
And the main theme in comments is "do we care about article count?"
Erik
-----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_foc...
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_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization
Dario _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
I think consistent metrics are good BTW, if that means all periods use same methodology, are revised when errors in input or scripts surfaced, are recalculated (if possible) when incremental insights lead to revised definition (so that older metrics remain relevant and comparable with recent data), and so on. So consistent metrics yes, but static metrics no. And that difference is relevant here.
It seems to me I read not often enough about an updated metric in the world at large. Something like "inflation in 2001 in US has been reassessed to have been 2.2% where up till yesterday we thought it had been 2.1%"
Erik
-----Original Message----- From: Erik Zachte [mailto:ezachte@wikimedia.org] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 23:15 To: 'A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an interest in Wikipedia and analytics.' Subject: RE: [Analytics] The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
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.
And the main theme in comments is "do we care about article count?"
Erik
-----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_foc...
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_... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics_standardization
Dario _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
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_foc...
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_... 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