In the category 'nice to know':
I made a script to measure who is most involved in public mailing lists discussions, and on which lists.
You'll find a complete list of mailing lists and how their activy changed over time http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/
For each list you'll find a breakdown of posts by author, with board activity added separately, e.g. for the foundation list http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html
Powerposters get their own page (*). They are all combined at http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html
Overall board activy on public mailing lists has not significantly decreased over time http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Board.html Most change of activity can be alluded to less board posts on technical lists.
Caveat: be careful with interpretations.
1 Please don't confuse number of posts of a person with relevance of that person's contributions. Less may be more in some cases. 2 People who seem less active may be very active on private mailing lists. 3 Lists that are hardly active may have a private couterpart. 4 People may have posted with different names, some are already interpreted as aliasses, but probably some not yet. 5 Over time the character of some lists may have evolved as new more specialized lists were introduced. 6 There is no strict separation between lists. Non technical lists will contain technical discussions from time to time.
These stats are autoupdated daily.
By the way, I hope to refresh wikistats as soon as a reasonably complete set of new downloads is available, with most major wikipedias included. http://download.wikimedia.org/
Erik Zachte
* Known bug: for some powerposters with special chars in their name their own page is not linked properly. ------------------------------------------------------------- Unrelated: Delphine pointed out my posts break mail threads. That was not on purpose e.g. to draw attention. I follow lists through pipermail and copy/paste texts I quote. I'll subscribe to mail, and reply in orderly fashion.
Erik Zachte
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unrelated: Delphine pointed out my posts break mail threads. That was not on purpose e.g. to draw attention. I follow lists through pipermail and copy/paste texts I quote. I'll subscribe to mail, and reply in orderly fashion.
Better yet, read them through gmane. It is working great. Ant
Erik Zachte wrote:
In the category 'nice to know':
I made a script to measure who is most involved in public mailing lists discussions, and on which lists.
You'll find a complete list of mailing lists and how their activy changed over time http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/
For each list you'll find a breakdown of posts by author, with board activity added separately, e.g. for the foundation list http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html
snip rest
Eric,
There may be a minor error in one of your loops or pattern matching comparisons, or the explanation above is slightly off.
The appears enwiki-l stats appear to shut off at five posts. Perhaps the graphics is truncated for ease of use and the totals are accurate?
There was a single post by me to enwiki-l.
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000003.html
The header was:
*Michael R. Irwin* mri_icboise at surfbest.net mailto:wikien-l%40Wikipedia.org?Subject=%5BWikien-l%5D%20Getting%20started&In-Reply-To= /Fri Nov 15 03:32:18 UTC 2002
/The other two places I expected to see data on my activity it was there under Michael R. Irwin. Some of it originated from the above email address and some from my current address so I have concluded your processing routines were focused on the name Michael R. Irwin which is what is shown in the y-axis of the summary stats.
It seemed to accurately pick up posts signed as both mirwin and as my later handle lazyquasar but they were all annotated as from Michael R. Irwin in the header so that was not surprising.
Forgive my pickiness but these stats look incredibly useful for some kinds project management activities such as proposal preparation or analsysis of participation trends but it is easy to draw wrong conclusions if the basis for the data presented and being used is misunderstood.
Obviously any subtle error off by one on my data may be way off for someone else.
Any further explanation to clarify exactly what is counted and how it is summarized if the data is not exactly accurate in the counts of all the emails in the archives would be appreciated by me.
Thanks!
regards, Michael R. Irwin lazyquasar
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
The appears enwiki-l stats appear to shut off at five posts. Perhaps the graphics is truncated for ease of use and the totals are accurate?
Yes indeed. This is on purpose. The table would be extraordinary large if I showed everyone who edited one or two times on a list. Yet the counts are complete. Those single edits are included.
On startup mailing lists I do show all data, even single posts.
I parse mailman archives. I do not use mail address, scan for username as z in "From: x at y (z)"
It seemed to accurately pick up posts signed as both mirwin and as my later handle lazyquasar but they were all annotated as from Michael R. Irwin in the header so that was not surprising.
Yes, as explained above.
Any further explanation to clarify exactly what is counted and how it is summarized if the data is not exactly accurate in the counts of all the emails in the archives would be appreciated by me.
Please ask if you have more questions.
Oh, I was asked why Jimbo has more posts than the board combined. That is because Jimbo preceded the board with quite a few months. :)
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
In the category 'nice to know':
I made a script to measure who is most involved in public mailing lists discussions, and on which lists.
You'll find a complete list of mailing lists and how their activy changed over time http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/
For each list you'll find a breakdown of posts by author, with board activity added separately, e.g. for the foundation list http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html
... I find these stats more scary than anything :-)
Okay, I shut up for a while...
Thanks Eric ...
Powerposters get their own page (*). They are all combined at http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html
Overall board activy on public mailing lists has not significantly decreased over time http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Board.html Most change of activity can be alluded to less board posts on technical lists.
Caveat: be careful with interpretations.
1 Please don't confuse number of posts of a person with relevance of that person's contributions. Less may be more in some cases. 2 People who seem less active may be very active on private mailing lists. 3 Lists that are hardly active may have a private couterpart. 4 People may have posted with different names, some are already interpreted as aliasses, but probably some not yet. 5 Over time the character of some lists may have evolved as new more specialized lists were introduced. 6 There is no strict separation between lists. Non technical lists will contain technical discussions from time to time.
These stats are autoupdated daily.
By the way, I hope to refresh wikistats as soon as a reasonably complete set of new downloads is available, with most major wikipedias included. http://download.wikimedia.org/
Erik Zachte
- Known bug: for some powerposters with special chars in their name their
own page is not linked properly.
Unrelated: Delphine pointed out my posts break mail threads. That was not on purpose e.g. to draw attention. I follow lists through pipermail and copy/paste texts I quote. I'll subscribe to mail, and reply in orderly fashion.
Anthere wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote:
In the category 'nice to know':
I made a script to measure who is most involved in public mailing lists discussions, and on which lists.
For each list you'll find a breakdown of posts by author, with board activity added separately, e.g. for the foundation list http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html
... I find these stats more scary than anything :-)
Okay, I shut up for a while...
Thanks Eric ...
Yeah, thanks?!
The scary thing for me is how much time I spend on these lists producing dubious accomplishments. :-[
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org