On 11 March 2014 16:02, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Editors, it seems, chose Monobook 2:1 over Vector as of this time last year, when there were many other skins; that is, they make the conscious choice. (I also think there's something really wonky about the "power user" numbers. There's no way there are less than 15,000 users active in the last six months with over 1000 edits across all of the projects.) There's a lot of value in paying attention to Monobook.
This is based on a mis-understanding of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Turning_off_outdated_skins/stats. Specifically:
One limitation of the data is that we could only retrieve users who had
actively set a preference for their skin; users who had not done this displayed with a null value in the relevant table. Such users are not included in the numbers for Vector in the next section, which leads to an *underrepresentation of Vector*. Based on an approximate calculation,[3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Turning_off_outdated_skins/stats#cite_note-3 this may *exclude up to 85 per cent of users*.
[My emphases.]
To put it another way, all the data shows is that of active users who'd made over 1000 edits, 1/3 had actively changed their skin setting to Vector and were still there at the time.
Example scenarios:
- Users who opted-in early to Vector when Monobook was still default (there were lots of us back then). - Users who chose to go with Cologne Blue back in the day, then Simple, then later picked Vector. - Users who stayed with Classic when Monobook was introduced (*waves walking stick*), then later moved to Vector.
Making a linear assumption (which is also wrong) would suggest that there were ~100,000 active users with >= 1000 edits, of whom ~90% use Vector, ~9% use Monobook, and ~1% use Cologne Blue or Modern. 10:1 in favour of Vector is more representative than 2:1 in favour of Monobook, though some up-to-date data would be appreciated at some point, I'd suggest.
J.