Put the philosophical questions aside, "analytical" categories (rather
than social categories) should be linked to your research questions.
Analytical categories should thus not be universal in this sense, but
rather are tied back to your research questions.
I guess it is better to say, "I develop a way to define a 'regular
contributor'....in eo.WP" rather than "I calculated a..." because it is
not a pure math calculation but a definition with your own making (and
the following credits AND responsibility).
The below is a point-to-point critique and suggestions...
* made at least one edit in that week
--It seems arbitrary to come up with a number within a certain time frame. Again, if you can come up with a distribution of edits over contributors, either through previous study or your study, that the contributors who match your profile have made 75% of the new edits in the past month (the time frame issue still needs to be sorted out about the frequency of edits), it will be much convincing....
* obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who
does Interwiki linking)
--If your research question is about actual content contributor in the strict sense, then you might "exclude" those foreign helpers. However, you have take that as limitation because you might lose those who provide foreign links then have real impact on the content. To my limited experience in Chinese Wikipedia, these happen quiet often in entries and issues that involve East Asian or Sino-US context.
* made his first edit at least six months ago
--Again, it seems arbitrary. If you can come up a distribution of users' contribution over time (i.e. frequency), you might be able to develop a matrix that can include certain amount of people that you call "regular contributors). You have to acknowledge that you exclude the newbies with this because you, again, cite previous research or use common sense, suggesting most of the newbies are not becoming "regular contributors". Still if you do so, you have to follow up on your research to see whether it is true that those newbies do become "regular contributors" will not have significant impact on your results and analysis.
* made at least ten edits at all
--Again, it seems arbitrary. Find the overall profile. Define your questions. Determine the selection threshold and be ready to defend your picks with previous research or common sense.
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello,
>From time to time I ask myself (and others) what is a "regular
contributor" to a Wikipedia language edition. According to "Tell us
about your Wikipedia" the definitions are quite different.
At eo.WP I once checked a week long (in this August) who was making
edits, and I calculated a "regular contributor" if someone
* made at least one edit in that week
* obviously speaks Esperanto (is no "foreign helper" like someone who
does Interwiki linking)
* made his first edit at least six months ago
* made at least ten edits at all
My result was: 71, compared to 141 "active users" and 50 "very active
users" (Wikimedia Statistics, May 2008).
What do you think about this definition?
Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk