Hi Felipe,
I cant follow your reasoning how bots are insignificant.
Just as Ziko pointed out, the matrix of bot contributions (and our general
experience) tells otherwise.
On larger wikipedias bots account for 5-30% of edits on smaller wikis
anything up to 50-70% or even more in rare cases.
Think of the bots that add interwiki links as primary example of activities
that account for massive amount of edits.
These may be insignificant on popular articles with 1000s of edits, but
most articles have very few edits, the long tail one might call it and
there it adds up.
Cheers, Erik
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van
Dijk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 23:37
To: glimmer_phoenix(a)yahoo.es; Research into Wikimedia content and
communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Hello Felipe,
Maybe we speak about different things now. At
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
de <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm>
ja <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaJA.htm>
fr <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm>
it <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm>
pl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPL.htm>
es <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm>
nl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm>
pt <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPT.htm>
ru <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaRU.htm>
zh <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm>
sv <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm>
fi <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFI.htm>
8%
6%
22%
25%
26%
15%
29%
30%
26%
15%
23%
22%
The bot share of all edits is not that insignificant.
Ziko
2008/11/13 Felipe Ortega <glimmer_phoenix(a)yahoo.es>
Hi, Erik, and all.
IMHO, it would be a good idea...but not definitely an urgent one. In our
analyses on the top-ten Wikipedias, we found that bots contributions
introduced very few noise in data (to be precise statistically, it was not
significant at all).
You also have the additional problem that some bots are not identified in
the users_group table.
My "practical impression" is that when you deal with overall figures, then
bots are irrelevant. However, if you want to focus in special metrics like
concentration indexes then their contribution DOES MATTER, since a very
active bot in one month may ruin your measurments.
Regards,
Felipe.
--- El mié, 22/10/08, Erik Zachte <erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com> escribió:
De: Erik Zachte <erikzachte(a)infodisiac.com>
Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Para: wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: miércoles, 22 octubre, 2008 9:55
Statistics,
with "Wikipedians",
"active" and "very active
users";
like often, Zachte's Statistics are great,
but
easily misleading.
Also keep in mind that most figures in wikistats still
include bot edits.
IMO it becomes more and more urgent to present separate
counts for humans
and bots.
For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time were
bot edits, but most
of these will be from recent years, so the percentage will
be even higher
for recent years.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
Erik Zachte
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde