Hi Felipe,
I can’t 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 1000’s
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@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@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
|
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@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@infodisiac.com>
escribió:
> De: Erik Zachte <erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
> Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
> Para: wiki-research-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde