WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com writes:
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 edits.
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?