--- El vie, 14/11/08, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com escribió:
De: Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com Asunto: RE: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor" Para: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org, glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es Fecha: viernes, 14 noviembre, 2008 2:29 Hi Felipe,
I can’t follow your reasoning how bots are insignificant.
Just as Ziko pointed out, the matrix of bot contributions (and our general experience) tells otherwise.
On larger wikipedias bots account for 5-30% of edits on smaller wikis anything up to 50-70% or even more in rare cases.
Mmmm, then we have something really strange going on here. I thought I had a graph of the evolution of bots edits share with respect to the total number of edits by month, but I think I have to generate it again. However, my "impression" looking at temporal tables and results was not that high.
Actually, I'm not the only one who stated that. Nikki Kittur, in another good paper: http://www.parc.com/research/publications/files/5904.pdf
Pointed out the same, though for enwiki (and we haven't got figures to compare that).
All in all, I think this does not affect our results or model since, as a bare minimum, I always add a "where rev_user not in (select ug_user from user_groups where ug_group='bot')" in my base queries.
I will try to post a graph soon to have quantitative arguments, rather than mere "impressions". Perhaps I'm missing something, but if so, I could not say, right now, what.
Think of the bots that add interwiki links as primary example of activities that account for massive amount of edits.
That's precisely why I was quite suprised/concerned about my findings. They are counterintuitive.
These may be insignificant on popular articles with 1000’s of edits, but most articles have very few edits, ‘the long tail’ one might call it and there it adds up.
Yep, dead right. Just right now, I'm not concentrating on "per article" statistics but "per user" ones.
Best,
F.
Cheers, Erik
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 23:37 To: glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es; Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular contributor"
Hello Felipe,
Maybe we speak about different things now. At http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
de http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
ja http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaJA.htm
fr http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
it http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm
pl http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPL.htm
es http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm
nl http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm
pt http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPT.htm
ru http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaRU.htm
zh http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm
sv http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm
fi http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFI.htm
8%
6%
22%
25%
26%
15%
29%
30%
26%
15%
23%
22%
The bot share of all edits is not that insignificant.
Ziko
2008/11/13 Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es
Hi, Erik, and all.
IMHO, it would be a good idea...but not definitely an urgent one. In our analyses on the top-ten Wikipedias, we found that bots contributions introduced very few noise in data (to be precise statistically, it was not significant at all).
You also have the additional problem that some bots are not identified in the users_group table.
My "practical impression" is that when you deal with overall figures, then bots are irrelevant. However, if you want to focus in special metrics like concentration indexes then their contribution DOES MATTER, since a very active bot in one month may ruin your measurments.
Regards,
Felipe.
--- El mié, 22/10/08, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com escribió:
De: Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com Asunto: [Wiki-research-l] "Regular
contributor"
Para: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: miércoles, 22 octubre, 2008 9:55
Statistics, with "Wikipedians",
"active" and "very active users";
like often, Zachte's Statistics are great,
but
easily misleading.
Also keep in mind that most figures in wikistats still include bot edits.
IMO it becomes more and more urgent to present
separate
counts for humans and bots.
For instance in eo: 54% of total edits for all time
were
bot edits, but most
of these will be from recent years, so the percentage
will
be even higher
for recent years.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
Erik Zachte
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde