Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find, especially in stable widely read articles. Yes you can find plenty of typos by checking new pages and recent changes, but I doubt our 5 edits a month editors are going to internal maintenance pages like that. I suspect they are readers who fix things they come across. It would be interesting to survey a sample of them I suspect we'd find many who are reading Wikipedia just as much as they used to, but if they only edit when they spot a mistake then of course they will now be editing less frequently. And of course none of that is actually bad, any more than is the loss of large numbers of vandals who used to get into the 5 edits a month band for at least the month in which they did their spree and were blocked..
The difficulty of getting precise measurements of "community health" makes it a fascinating topic, and with many known factors altering edit levels in sometimes poorly understood ways we need to be wary of oversimplifications. No-one really knows what would have happened if the many edit filters installed in the last four years had instead been coded as anti vandalism bots, clearly our edit count would now be much higher, but whether it would currently be higher or lower than in 2009 when the edit filters were introduced is unknown. Nor should we fret that we shifted so much of our anti-vandalism work from very quick reversion to not accepting edits. However it isn't sensible to benchmark community health against past edit levels, we should really be comparing community activity against readership levels. If we do that there is a disconnect between our readership which for years has grown faster than the internet and our community which is broadly stable. To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector. My suspicion is also that the rise of the mobile device, especially amongst the young, is turning us from an interactive medium into more of a broadcast one. It is also likely to be contributing to the greying of the pedia.
I am trying to list the major known and probable causes of changes of the fall in the raw editing levels in a page on wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F, feedback welcome.
Jonathan
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:45:17 -0500 From: "Marc A. Pelletier" marc@uberbox.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room Message-ID: 528D033D.6060000@uberbox.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 11/20/2013 01:06 PM, Richard Symonds wrote:
Not quite: I would argue that anti-vandalism work is a "gateway drug" to the rest of the project. Just a hunch, though.
I'm pretty sure that typo correction fills pretty much the same niche, though.
-- Marc
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 116, Issue 32
On 11/21/2013 03:37 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector.
I don't really agree that Vector is less encouraging of edits. I've been using it for years, and don't feel it slows down my editing.
Matt Flaschen
On 21 November 2013 21:26, Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu wrote:
On 11/21/2013 03:37 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector.
I don't really agree that Vector is less encouraging of edits. I've been using it for years, and don't feel it slows down my editing.
Can't say I've noticed a problem either, and I switched to Vector when it was still in testing.
- d.
Some editors used to Monobook certainly find it more comfortable than Vector, but many don't. I don't think there's any basis to conclude that monobook is in some way better for editing in the general case, outside the context of those long-term contributors.
(and, now, I am sure someone will pop up to say they loathe monobook and classic is the only usable style...)
Andrew. On 21 Nov 2013 21:26, "Matthew Flaschen" matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu wrote:
On 11/21/2013 03:37 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector
and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector.
I don't really agree that Vector is less encouraging of edits. I've been using it for years, and don't feel it slows down my editing.
Matt Flaschen
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 22 November 2013 00:30, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Some editors used to Monobook certainly find it more comfortable than Vector, but many don't. I don't think there's any basis to conclude that monobook is in some way better for editing in the general case, outside the context of those long-term contributors.
(and, now, I am sure someone will pop up to say they loathe monobook and classic is the only usable style...)
Wikipedia no longer supports classic. Which is unfortunate as it has some rather nice features despite showing its age.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find, especially in stable widely read articles. Yes you can find plenty of typos by checking new pages and recent changes, but I doubt our 5 edits a month editors are going to internal maintenance pages like that. I suspect they are readers who fix things they come across. It would be interesting to survey a sample of them I suspect we'd find many who are reading Wikipedia just as much as they used to, but if they only edit when they spot a mistake then of course they will now be editing less frequently. And of course none of that is actually bad, any more than is the loss of large numbers of vandals who used to get into the 5 edits a month band for at least the month in which they did their spree and were blocked..
The difficulty of getting precise measurements of "community health" makes it a fascinating topic, and with many known factors altering edit levels in sometimes poorly understood ways we need to be wary of oversimplifications. No-one really knows what would have happened if the many edit filters installed in the last four years had instead been coded as anti vandalism bots, clearly our edit count would now be much higher, but whether it would currently be higher or lower than in 2009 when the edit filters were introduced is unknown. Nor should we fret that we shifted so much of our anti-vandalism work from very quick reversion to not accepting edits. However it isn't sensible to benchmark community health against past edit levels, we should really be comparing community activity against readership levels. If we do that there is a disconnect between our readership which for years has grown faster than the internet and our community which is broadly stable. To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector. My suspicion is also that the rise of the mobile device, especially amongst the young, is turning us from an interactive medium into more of a broadcast one. It is also likely to be contributing to the greying of the pedia.
I am trying to list the major known and probable causes of changes of the fall in the raw editing levels in a page on wiki< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F
,
feedback welcome.
Holy smokes this thread has gotten off topic, but I'll bite. ;)
Making articles that need spelling and grammar fixes easily available to new editors is precisely what we're doing with GettingStarted, our software system for introducing newly-registered people to editing. (Docs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians). We're currently getting thousands of new people to make their first typo fix a month on English Wikipedia, and we're moving to other Wikipedias soon.
In English Wikipedia it's quite easy for us to do so, since there's a large category of articles needing copyediting. In other Wikipedias, it's not easy, because there is no such category. If you want to help us help newbies, the best thing you could do is create a copyediting category on your Wikipedia and link it to the appropriate Wikidata item (either Q8235695 or Q9137504).
As a side point: when we examine first-time editors contributions, these days it's rare to find someone start out by correcting vandalism, probably because now bots and users of tools like Huggle or Twinkle catch it all so fast. It's so small a number that when we examine samples of new contributors in our qualitative research,[1][2] we just put it in the Other category of edit types.
Steven
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Qualitat... 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/OB6/Cont...
Also, vandalism had always been a red herring, kind of like the terrorism that justifies the TSA security theater and NBA surveillance or the Red Scare. It's a wrong-headed obsession that weakens community. On Nov 22, 2013 2:06 PM, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find, especially in stable widely read articles. Yes you can find plenty of typos by checking new pages and recent changes, but I doubt our 5 edits a month editors
are
going to internal maintenance pages like that. I suspect they are readers who fix things they come across. It would be interesting to survey a
sample
of them I suspect we'd find many who are reading Wikipedia just as much
as
they used to, but if they only edit when they spot a mistake then of
course
they will now be editing less frequently. And of course none of that is actually bad, any more than is the loss of large numbers of vandals who used to get into the 5 edits a month band for at least the month in which they did their spree and were blocked..
The difficulty of getting precise measurements of "community health"
makes
it a fascinating topic, and with many known factors altering edit levels
in
sometimes poorly understood ways we need to be wary of
oversimplifications.
No-one really knows what would have happened if the many edit filters installed in the last four years had instead been coded as anti vandalism bots, clearly our edit count would now be much higher, but whether it
would
currently be higher or lower than in 2009 when the edit filters were introduced is unknown. Nor should we fret that we shifted so much of our anti-vandalism work from very quick reversion to not accepting edits. However it isn't sensible to benchmark community health against past
edit
levels, we should really be comparing community activity against
readership
levels. If we do that there is a disconnect between our readership which for years has grown faster than the internet and our community which is broadly stable. To some extent this can be considered a success for
Vector
and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector. My suspicion is also that the rise of the mobile device,
especially
amongst the young, is turning us from an interactive medium into more of
a
broadcast one. It is also likely to be contributing to the greying of the pedia.
I am trying to list the major known and probable causes of changes of the fall in the raw editing levels in a page on wiki<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F
,
feedback welcome.
Holy smokes this thread has gotten off topic, but I'll bite. ;)
Making articles that need spelling and grammar fixes easily available to new editors is precisely what we're doing with GettingStarted, our software system for introducing newly-registered people to editing. (Docs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians). We're currently getting thousands of new people to make their first typo fix a month on English Wikipedia, and we're moving to other Wikipedias soon.
In English Wikipedia it's quite easy for us to do so, since there's a large category of articles needing copyediting. In other Wikipedias, it's not easy, because there is no such category. If you want to help us help newbies, the best thing you could do is create a copyediting category on your Wikipedia and link it to the appropriate Wikidata item (either Q8235695 or Q9137504).
As a side point: when we examine first-time editors contributions, these days it's rare to find someone start out by correcting vandalism, probably because now bots and users of tools like Huggle or Twinkle catch it all so fast. It's so small a number that when we examine samples of new contributors in our qualitative research,[1][2] we just put it in the Other category of edit types.
Steven
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Qualitat... 2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/OB6/Cont... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Remember that is always the other person who is wrong headed and obsessed... Cheeers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in theroom
Also, vandalism had always been a red herring, kind of like the terrorism that justifies the TSA security theater and NBA surveillance or the Red Scare. It's a wrong-headed obsession that weakens community. On Nov 22, 2013 2:06 PM, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find, especially in stable widely read articles. Yes you can find plenty of typos by checking new pages and recent changes, but I doubt our 5 edits a month editors
are
going to internal maintenance pages like that. I suspect they are readers who fix things they come across. It would be interesting to survey a
sample
of them I suspect we'd find many who are reading Wikipedia just as much
as
they used to, but if they only edit when they spot a mistake then of
course
they will now be editing less frequently. And of course none of that is actually bad, any more than is the loss of large numbers of vandals who used to get into the 5 edits a month band for at least the month in which they did their spree and were blocked..
The difficulty of getting precise measurements of "community health"
makes
it a fascinating topic, and with many known factors altering edit levels
in
sometimes poorly understood ways we need to be wary of
oversimplifications.
No-one really knows what would have happened if the many edit filters installed in the last four years had instead been coded as anti vandalism bots, clearly our edit count would now be much higher, but whether it
would
currently be higher or lower than in 2009 when the edit filters were introduced is unknown. Nor should we fret that we shifted so much of our anti-vandalism work from very quick reversion to not accepting edits. However it isn't sensible to benchmark community health against past
edit
levels, we should really be comparing community activity against
readership
levels. If we do that there is a disconnect between our readership which for years has grown faster than the internet and our community which is broadly stable. To some extent this can be considered a success for
Vector
and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of Vector. My suspicion is also that the rise of the mobile device,
especially
amongst the young, is turning us from an interactive medium into more of
a
broadcast one. It is also likely to be contributing to the greying of the pedia.
I am trying to list the major known and probable causes of changes of the fall in the raw editing levels in a page on wiki<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F
,
feedback welcome.
Holy smokes this thread has gotten off topic, but I'll bite. ;)
Making articles that need spelling and grammar fixes easily available to new editors is precisely what we're doing with GettingStarted, our software system for introducing newly-registered people to editing. (Docs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians). We're currently getting thousands of new people to make their first typo fix a month on English Wikipedia, and we're moving to other Wikipedias soon.
In English Wikipedia it's quite easy for us to do so, since there's a large category of articles needing copyediting. In other Wikipedias, it's not easy, because there is no such category. If you want to help us help newbies, the best thing you could do is create a copyediting category on your Wikipedia and link it to the appropriate Wikidata item (either Q8235695 or Q9137504).
As a side point: when we examine first-time editors contributions, these days it's rare to find someone start out by correcting vandalism, probably because now bots and users of tools like Huggle or Twinkle catch it all so fast. It's so small a number that when we examine samples of new contributors in our qualitative research,[1][2] we just put it in the Other category of edit types.
Steven
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Qualitat... 2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/OB6/Cont... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org