Actually anyone who is up around the 90% is probably a “pure VE” user because there are
some actions that you do with gadgets like HotCat that are not counted as VE but equally
are not source editing either. Similarly pure-VE people must have to grapple with Talk
pages from time to time for which the VE is not enabled. They might revert with “undo”
which launches the source editor and press SAVE which is obviously not attributed as a VE
action, but if they do not engage with the wikitext itself, is hardly a source editor
action either.
Kerry
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
Sent: Thursday, 20 August 2015 8:50 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core
community gone beyond a statistical blip?
For anyone who's still curious, here's[1] a set of all the editors who have made
over 100 article edits on Enwiki in the past 30 days: their total article edits, total VE
article edits, and the % of total made with VE.
And the winner is... User:Hessamnia![2]
1.
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4809
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20160101000000&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Hessamnia&namespace=0>
&offset=20160101000000&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Hessamnia&namespace=0
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com
<mailto:aaron.halfaker@gmail.com> > wrote:
I feel like I should expand on my skepticism of HHVM as a mechanism for the observed rise
in active editors.
The average edit takes 7 minutes[1,2]. HHVM reduces the time to *save* the edit by a
couple seconds. 7 minutes - a couple seconds = ~7 minutes. So, HHVM doesn't really
help you edit substantially faster.
1. Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013, February). Using edit sessions to measure
participation in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported
cooperative work (pp. 861-870). ACM.
2. Halfaker, A., Keyes, O., Kluver, D., Thebault-Spieker, J., Nguyen, T., Shores, K., ...
& Warncke-Wang, M. (2015, May). User Session Identification Based on Strong
Regularities in Inter-activity Time. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference
on World Wide Web (pp. 410-418). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering
Committee.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org
<mailto:ahalfaker@wikimedia.org> > wrote:
So, I've been digging into this a bit. Regretfully, I don't have my results
written up in a nice, consumable format. So, you'll need to deal with my worklogs.
See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015/Work…
TL;DR: It looks like there was a sudden burst in new registrations. Work by Neil Quinn of
the Editing Team suggests that these new registrations were largely the result of changes
to the mobile app. I didn't specifically look at 100+ monthly editors. That seems
like a fine extension of the study. I'd be happy to support someone else to do that
work. I have some datasets that should make it relatively easy.
If the data is correct, then [HHVM] is likely to be
one of the main reasons for the change.
Correlation is not causation. There's no cause to arrive at this conclusion. In my
limited study of the effects of HHVM on newcomer engagement, I found no meaningful effect.
I think that, before we consider HHVM as a cause of this, we should at least propose a
mechanism and look for evidence of that mechanism.
See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:49 AM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com> > wrote:
Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or less using V/E, and some, including me in
4th place, will have been having a look at V/E after the attention it has had recently at
Wikimania, on the signpost and on mailing lists. I'm not sure that something that
barely involves 10% of a group of editors could have had such a big effect.
More likely and just at the right time, late 2014, Erik Zachte has reminded me that we had
a major speed-up with php parser change.
<http://hhvm.com/blog/7205/wikipedia-on-hhvm>
http://hhvm.com/blog/7205/wikipedia-on-hhvm
If the data is correct, then that is likely to be one of the main reasons for the change.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 17 Aug 2015, at 19:11, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
<mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org> > wrote:
It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in the past month
(across all namespaces):
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com> > wrote:
On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E, I took some
snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500&days=30>
yesterday and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample
this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and the other only
four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e have opted out of having their
edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming "gobs and gobs" are either on other language
wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I haven't sampled or big in number but still
too small a proportion to account for the increase in the number of editors doing >100
edits per month.
On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
<mailto:jmorgan@wikimedia.org> > wrote:
There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are experienced editors.
I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by veteran
editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything.
No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But it's exciting to
see :)
Anyone else have data that bears on these questions?
- J
*non-scientific estimate drawn from anecdata
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com> > wrote:
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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&offset=&limit=500&action=history>
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.
Jonathan
On 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
<mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com> > 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.
Kerry
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> ] On Behalf Of
WereSpielChequers
Sent: Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list
<rcom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:rcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English wikipedia's core
community gone beyond a statistical blip?
Hi,
With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in
<https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm> 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.
Regards
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>