That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually using V/E now?I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using it, and apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not seeing many V/E edits.
Looking at the history of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback the last 500 edits go back three months. So apart from the Interior, you and I Kerry I'm not sure there is a huge number of people testing it, and I wasn't testing it in the first 6 months of this year. I did see some research where they were claiming that retention rates for V/E editors were now as good as for people using the classic editor, but I would be surprised if there were enough people using V/E to make a difference to these figures, especially as this is about the editors doing over 100 edits a month.I agree it would be interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor by year of original signup. But I think the long awaited boost from V?E editing is yet to come, if the regulars have started to increase that is likely to be due to something else.JonathanOn 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:_______________________________________________
Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be using the Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor by year of original signup.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
Sent: Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <email@example.com>; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip?
With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in June 2014, we have now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the core community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a statistical blip, especially when you compare calender months that may have 5 weekends in one year and four the next. But 6 months in a row does begin to look like a change in pattern.
As far as caveats go I'm aware of several of the reasons why raw edit count is a suspect measure, but I'm not aware of anything that has come in in this year that would have artificially inflated edit counts and brought more of the under 100 editors into the >100 group.
I know there was a recent speedup, which should increase subsequent edit rates, and one of the edit filters got disabled in June, but neither of those should be relevant to the Jan-May period.
Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have otherwise thrown that statistic?
Otherwise I'm considering submitting something to the Signpost.
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l mailing list