WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)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
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