Mailing List Archive

From some voting in no.wp it seems like it takes some time for the real
trends to kick in. If the voting is open for a to short period only the
most eager users will vote and the result will be biased.

John

Brian skrev:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> The licensing update poll has been tallied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%)
>>>>>> "No, I am opposed to this change" : 1829 (10.5%)
>>>>>> "I do not have an opinion on this change" : 2391 (13.7%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Total ballots cast and certified: 17462
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a very good result, in particular the turnout looks
>> great to me!
>>>>> Congratulations to all who have worked hard to get to it, and I hope
>>>>> there will be a board resolution soon.
>>>>>
>>>> As was commented on elsewhere, the 2008 Board Election only had 3019
>>>> votes, which also suggests the turnout this time was remarkable.
>>>>
>>> Yes -- I think this is definitely the largest group of Wikimedians to
>>> ever collectively express an opinion on anything! It'd be worth
>>> figuring out why the vote was successful, if possible (long period of
>>> voting? ubiquitous sitenotices? Important topic? Lots of outside
>>> interest?)
>>>
>> Deliberately low threshold for eligibility.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
>
> And yet the "threshold for eligibility" hypothesis has not been tested on
> the projects. You have no idea whether allowing only those with the most
> biased opinions to vote (as most project votes are conducted) skews the
> outcome towards or away from the rational or optimal choice, or whether it
> has any effect on the outcome at all. Indeed, we have no idea whether the
> wording or presentation or usability of the votes matters. It could matter a
> great deal, changing the outcome in a statistically significant matter, or
> it could matter not at all, rendering the threshold for eligibility
> hypothesis meaningless. The current methods amount to folk statistics
> because nobody has any clue what matters and what doesn't. That's why I
> continue to encourage the WMF to adopt scientific thinking.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

My best guess for currently active editors, if active is defined as "a
registered user who has made more than five edits in the past month." is
somewhere between 70,000 and 90,000.



Feb 2009 roughly 50,000 editors on all Wikipedia's except English made 5 or
more edits in that month.

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



Caveat: Please note that there will be Wikipedians that edit on several
language projects, and therefore are counted twice or more. With SUL it
should be possible to filter double counts. This has not happened yet.



Also this number includes bots which are not yet counted separately (they
will soon be). With hundreds of bots in existence, and 40-50 bots active on
100+ projects, roughly subtract 5,000-10,000 from the above figure.

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



Sep 2008 roughly 41,000 editors made 5 or more edits on the English
Wikipedia in that month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_frequency



Again some of the editors on wp:en: will already have been counted in the
first figure.



The number of active editors on other Wikimedia projects does not change the
overall order of magnitude.



Right now Tomasz Finc is working on a special dump for the English
Wikipedia, without article contents but with all revision data, so that at
least we will have up to date edit(or) stats on wp:en: in the foreseeable
future.



Expect to see more granular and up to date edit(or) stats before Wikimania.



Erik Zachte





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l