Yes, thanks for sending this along. I created a fallout chart which helped me understand the relative weights of different paths: http://bit.ly/ggyypQ I'm also trying to put this in the context of the Editor Trends Research [1] and the Product Whitepaper [2]. These numbers seem to suggest that registered users actually have a relatively small percentage chance of getting their first edit reverted (3.2% = 1,223/38,404). This seems to be pretty consistent with what we're seeing in other revert research (e.g., Zachte's revert trends [3] has registered editors being reverted 4.2% of the time). While reversion rates for registered editors appears to have grown quite a bit from 2005-2007, the numbers are still relatively small, especially when compared to the reversion rates of anonymous editors. This seems to suggest that important areas for research are: 1) Understanding reversion of edits from anonymous users and their downstream impact on our other metrics (e.g., New Wikipedians) 2) Obtaining a more nuanced understanding of reversions to registered editors (e.g., in addition to understanding the % of edits that get reverted over time, understanding the nature of the reversions and whether they have gotten more contentious over time). Howie [1] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results [2] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Whitepaper [3] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Whitepaper#Reversion_and_Newbie_… On 3/21/11 1:24 PM, Zack Exley wrote:

Howie, There are two things that I'm pretty sure the editor trends survey has missed. Firstly it looks at reverted edits but not deleted ones. That's why Mr Z man's survey is so important - it looks at the article creators whose deleted articles don't count if you only look at live edits. Secondly, and I'm not sure whether we want to make a big public thing about this, much of wikimedia was contributed by people who were at work. As companies got more slick about monitoring internet usage and disciplining staff for misuse of the Internet then I'm fairly sure we lost a lot of those editors, or only got their edits outside working hours. I started editing in early 2007, just after the peak period, and I knew not to edit at work because I'd been involved from a Privacy angle in the implementation of monitoring software. I don't know what the market penetration was during the middle of that decade for such software, but I'm pretty sure it is now ubiquitous on corporate setups. We don't have either the IP address data to directly verify this nor do I think e could or should ask our 2004/2006 editors if they were editing on their employers time. Though we could indirectly test this by taking editors who have declared their age and timezone and look at how the profile of edits in the working day has changed over time. I know we that in the UK mornings we usually have a build up of backlogs as the Australians go to bed, the Americans haven't woken up yet and most of the Brits are at work. I suspect that would have been different five years ago. If my theory on that is correct then one element of our dropoff in editing may be a one off rather than an ongoing trend. Though I think we ought to be discreet about this, we could have some editors still in the same jobs as they had then who wouldn't want their employers to realise that we still have records of the times they edited Wikipedia several years ago. WereSpielChequers On 21 March 2011 21:36, Howie Fung <hfung(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: