100 edits a month does indeed have the disadvantage that all edits are not
equal, there may be some people for whom that represents 100 hours
contributed, others a single hour. So an individual month could be inflated
by something as trivial as a vandalfighting bot going down for a couple of
days and a bunch of oldtimers responding to a call on IRC by coming back
and running huggle for an hour.
But 7 months in a row where the total is higher than the same month the
previous year looks to me like a pattern.
Across the 3,000 or so editors on English wikipedia who contribute over a
hundred edits per month there could be a hidden pattern of an increase in
Huggle, stiki and AWB users more than offsetting a decline in manual
editing, but unless anyone analyses that and reruns those stats on some
metric such as "unique calender hours in which someone saves an edit" I
think it best to treat this as an imperfect indicator of community health.
I'm not suggesting that we are out of the woods - there are other
indicators that are still looking bad, and I would love to see a better
proxy for active editors. But this is good news.
On 23 August 2015 at 19:31, Mark J. Nelson <mjn(a)anadrome.org> wrote:
Could you be more specific re "In general
I'm not sure the 100+ count is
among the most reliable." What in particular do you think is unreliable
about that metric?
The main thing I have questions about with that metric is whether it's a
good proxy for editing activity in general, or is dominated by
fluctuations in "bookkeeping" contributions, i.e. people doing
mass-moves of categories and that kind of thing (which makes it quite
easy to get to 100 edits). This has long been a complaint about edit
counts as a metric, which have never really been solidly validated.
Looking through my own personal editing history, it looks like there's
an anti-correlation between hitting the 100-edit threshold and making
more substantial edits. In months when I work on article-writing I
typically have only 20-30 edits, because each edit takes a lot of
library research, so I can't make more than one or two a day. In months
where I do more bookkeeping-type edits I can easily have 500 or 1000
But that's just for me; it's certainly possible that Wikipedia-wide,
there's a good correlation between raw edit count and other kinds of
desirable activity measures. But is there evidence of that?
Mark J. Nelson
Wiki-research-l mailing list