Dear Isaac,
I'm not aware of any research on this. But there are a couple of common assumptions that you could check as part of any research.
1. One of the reasons why any suggestion that we make edit summaries compulsory is that as long as they are optional, blank edit summaries are a great way to identify vandals. 2. There is also a certain amount of "sneaky vandalism" denoted by edits that get reverted or reverted and the perpetrators get warned for vandalism or blocked as a "vandalism only account" 3. Though we admins have the technology to blank people's edit summaries it is very rarely used
Regards Jonathan
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 16:20, Isaac Johnson isaac@wikimedia.org wrote:
Does anyone know of any research or statistics around edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary usage on Wikipedia? All I could find in a quick scan was some statistics from 2010 ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usage_of_edit_summary_on_Wikipedia). I'm curious if anyone has more updated statistics, or, even better: a more thorough analysis of how edit summaries are used by editors -- i.e. how complete they are, to what degree they represent the "what" vs. the "why", how often they are misleading, etc.
Best, Isaac
-- Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org