Great stuff Erik, thanks! It's fascinating to see the differences per
project. The 9% for reversions on the English Wikipedia seemed really
high to me, but then I saw that about half of those are IP's who
revert their own edits.
I love the huge spike in bot edits on the Dutch Wikipedia - is that
all WikiData stuff, or is that the species/genus bot?
Jane
2013/7/23, Erik Zachte <ezachte(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
Navigation on wikistats portal is far from ideal.
Right now you can find them as follows
http://stats.wikimedia.org
choose Special
choose Edits & Reverts
you'll see links to overview per project which again links to page per wiki
with detailed tables and charts
Erik Zachte
From: analytics-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:25 PM
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
Cc: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
Subject: Re: [Analytics] non-bot edits per month
Thanks! Those graphs are really useful. Is there any possibility that they
could be added to the main stat pages for the projects, like
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm, or even the report card pages?
It's unfortunate that such informative graphs are currently hidden away.
Ryan Kaldari
On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Graphs showing non-bot edits have been available for the largest
Wikipedias since earlier this month, see Erik Z.'s announcement at
http://infodisiac.com/blog/2013/07/new-edit-and-revert-stats/ .
E.g. English Wikipedia:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/EditsRevertsEN.htm
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I was poking around on
stats.wikimedia.org and
reportcard.wmflabs.org to
see
if I could find out how overall editing levels had changed (if any) over
the
past year. Unfortunately, it seems that all of our "edits per month" graphs
show all edits, including bot edits. Since changes in bot editing levels
are
often dramatic from month to month, this noise effectively cancels out the
usefulness of the graphs. For example, you can see a huge spike in March
when I presume the Wikidata bots were running at full force:
http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/#secondary-graphs-tab
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#3
My question is: Would it be possible to replace or augment these graphs
with
graphs that exclude bot edits? I know that bot status is not stored in the
revision table, so this would be quite expensive to tally. Would it be
prohibitively expensive? Sorry if this is a dumb question.
Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics