Re Erik's point about the spike in non WLM contributors. I'm hoping this is largely a result of the publicity for WLM, If so it would be interesting to know:

Were these images that would have qualified for WLM if they'd been appropriately templated? If so we might have a problem with the process and a bunch of frustrated editors who tried to participate but had a problem.

Were these monuments from the 160 or so non-participating countries? If so we may have some people worth approaching who might be willing to help spread WLM to more countries next year.

Were these images that weren't monuments? I'm hoping that the publicity for WLM has prompted a lot of other photographers to load images to Commons, but on things that fit their interests. If so perhaps we should be thinking about other contests - for example a picture of every river, species and village,

Was thus a complete coincidence, based on unrelated publicity?

I don't have the tools to analyse this, but it should be possible to investigate this by looking at the categories that the images in the unexplained spike were loaded to.

WSC

On 5 October 2012 18:37, Erik Zachte <ezachte@wikimedia.org> wrote:

Last chart is similar as first chart, now with remaining Commons contributors to namespace 6 plotted as second line.

Surprisingly there is still a big leap in non WLM editors in Sep 2012

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WLM_uploaders_2010-2012_vs_other_NS6_editors_linear.png

==> (hmmm, seems too coincidental, are we missing WML participants ?, in other words should some users still move from red to blue line ?)