[WikiEN-l] Medpedia

[Andrew Gray]

On 29 July 2010 22:21, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia
> editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be
> considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot
> or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are
> automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been
> meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion
> of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with
> pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).

Slightly under 10% of all edits on enwiki were by bots - that's
bot-flagged accounts, not the various automatically-assisted tools.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTable.htm

The proportion has crept up a bit over time, but eyeballing the chart
it seems to have been stable around 9% for the last year or two.
There's a recent spike indicated there - I don't know if that's an
anomaly or not.

Across all languages, it's 20% historically, closer to 25% as a
proportion of current edits. Interestingly, it's clear that, roughly
speaking, the smaller the project the higher the proportion of bot
edits:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proportion_of_bot_edits_on_Wikipedia_by_overall_edit_count.svg

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk