I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
The outcome can be found at [[Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians]].
1 Maveric149 12995 2 Andre Engels 6287 3 Bryan Derksen 5978 4 AxelBoldt 5802 5 Koyaanis Qatsi 5002 6 Ed Poor 4849 7 Tucci528 4620 8 Jheijmans 4477 9 Brion VIBBER 4069 10 Zoe 3853 11 Eclecticology 3667 12 The Anome 3581 13 Tarquin 3577 14 Vicki Rosenzweig 3273 15 -- April 3155 16 Ellmist 2798 17 PierreAbbat 2654 18 Lee Daniel Crocker 2652 19 Isis 2651 20 The Epopt 2586
Note that in total we are slightly above 130000 edits, so Maveric did almost 10% of all edits.
Of course this is only a very rough measure of how much someone is working on the project - correcting a typo is an edit just as much as, say, extending a stub to a three-page article. Still, it seems that Wikipedia should hope and pray that maveric is not getting a life any time soon...
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
The outcome can be found at [[Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians]].
[snip]
Note that in total we are slightly above 130000 edits, so Maveric did almost 10% of all edits.
Of course this is only a very rough measure of how much someone is working on the project - correcting a typo is an edit just as much as, say, extending a stub to a three-page article. Still, it seems that Wikipedia should hope and pray that maveric is not getting a life any time soon...
Hmmm... I would have thought I'd be up there, and looking at the longer list I see I slot in at number 21 - not bad since I only registered in April! :)
I haven't got a job... so what's everyone else's excuse? :P
--- Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Of course this is only a very rough measure of how much someone is working on the project - correcting a typo is an edit just as much as, say, extending a stub to a three-page article. Still, it seems that Wikipedia should hope and pray that maveric is not getting a life any time soon...
I guess I'll have to stop paying so much attention to mine in order to crack the top 20...
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
At 13:09 18.09.2002, Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
If possible, could you give us a hint about what query you used? I'm almost SQL-illiterate as you see;-)
Cheers, WojPob
At 13:09 18.09.2002, Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
If possible, could you give us a hint about what query you used? I'm almost SQL-illiterate as you see;-)
So am I, I had not used SQL at all outside Wikipedia; however I used Enchanter's formula for creating Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links as my model, and used that I came up with:
SELECT user_name, COUNT(*) as co FROM cur, user WHERE cur_user=user_id GROUP BY user_id ORDER BY co DESC LIMIT 500
plus:
SELECT user_name, COUNT(*) as co FROM old, user WHERE old_user=user_id GROUP BY user_id ORDER BY co DESC LIMIT 500
And then sorted them using Unix commands, and added the numbers by hand. I suppose that someone who knows more about SQL will be able to tell me how I could have done the addition within the sorting.
Andre Engels
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 01:09:10PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
Bah; if you'd only done it a day later, I would have easily cracked the top 200 list :-) Presumably somebody will update the list occasionally?
Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
The outcome can be found at [[Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians]].
Note that in total we are slightly above 130000 edits, so Maveric did almost 10% of all edits.
This is interesting data, but your total of 130,000 is not correct. I put the data from the article on a spreadsheet and totalled the number of edits. I came up with 185,630. And this doesn't include people who have contributed fewer than 104 edits.
Ec
This is interesting data, but your total of 130,000 is not correct. I put the data from the article on a spreadsheet and totalled the number of edits. I came up with 185,630. And this doesn't include people who have contributed fewer than 104 edits.
Yes, and I know what went wrong - the numbers I have are for the period since the switch phase I-phase II, that is February, while the 130,000 I got from the Statistics page is from the period since the phase II-phase III transition, that is, July.
Andre Engels
At 01:09 PM 18/09/02 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
I wanted to see who is the most active contributor at the moment. To do so, I counted (or rather, had the database count) the numbers of edits per registered user.
The outcome can be found at [[Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians]].
1 Maveric149 12995 2 Andre Engels 6287 3 Bryan Derksen 5978
Holy cow! I had no idea I was that far up there. I might have to start taking myself more seriously in the future.
Heh heh heh... I'm gunning for your silver medal now, Andre! I just have to add/edit 300 more articles! Maveric's probably quite secure with the gold, though. :)
I just have to add/edit 300 more articles!
For anybody who feels the urge to add a cool 1500 article edits to their account, I suggest removing the remaining now obsolete Year-in-Review links from the year pages. I think I'm down to the 13th century.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On 18 Sep 2002, at 20:52, Axel Boldt wrote:
I just have to add/edit 300 more articles!
For anybody who feels the urge to add a cool 1500 article edits to their account, I suggest removing the remaining now obsolete Year-in-Review links from the year pages. I think I'm down to the 13th century.
Not wanting to spoil anyones fun, wouldn't it be slightly more productive for someone with access to the server to just export the year articles from the database, do a search and replace, and import them back in ?
Imran
Imran
Axel Boldt wrote:
For anybody who feels the urge to add a cool 1500 article edits to their account, I suggest removing the remaining now obsolete Year-in-Review links from the year pages. I think I'm down to the 13th century.
Actually, to get 1500, they would have to find another project as well - there are 'only' 800 such year pages left. The 4th century for example is completely 'clean', with the exception of 395. (A random check shows that it is you yourself and Chris mahan who cleaned this one up).
Not wanting to spoil anyones fun, wouldn't it be slightly more productive for someone with access to the server to just export the year articles from the database, do a search and replace, and import them back in ?
One would have to be VERY careful doing that, because there are 4 or 5 different formats that a not-corrected year page can have. But if someone wants to do so, maybe (s)he could check the other languages as well, and automatically add the interlanguage links for them?
Andre Engels
--- Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Actually, to get 1500, they would have to find another project as well - there are 'only' 800 such year pages left.
Ok then, here's another project: find a list of the most common spelling mistakes in the English language, and correct them all in Wikipedia. Fun!
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org