WSC - Though true that 2014 appears to have been the nadir for many editing metrics, even if you set the bar really high, I'd be impressed if you could find any relevant metric that was only 60% of what it was the year before. A lot more went in to dismal arbcom turnout than simply the fact that 2014 was our lowest year for most metrics. (I say that not just based on the metrics, but on dozens of private comments I've received from parties ranging from those who knew they coud vote but didn't, knew they could vote and did, and sitting functionaries. Yes, my inbox is painful this week.)
Best, Kevin Gorman On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > It might be interesting to look at when the 500-edit requirement was put in > place for certain articles that were targeted by off-site editing groups, > and whether that correlates with anything. It looks like the number of new > articles peaked some time ago. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:45 AM, WereSpielChequers > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Kevin, >> >> 2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on >> at least one count numbers have been rising since then. The problem in >> estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are unrelated to the >> arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the number of editors >> saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in 2015, September's >> figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September figure since 2010. >5 >> edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the same >> month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger group >> than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't >> a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote. >> >> >> On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election >>> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't >>> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Gorman >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case >>> <danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: >>> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm >>> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half >>> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of >>> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last >>> >> year. >>> > >>> > >>> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly, >>> > although I >>> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might >>> > reflect the >>> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize >>> > do >>> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so >>> > to >>> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion >>> > amongst >>> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution >>> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to >>> > care who >>> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a >>> > greater >>> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote. >>> > >>> > Daniel Case >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Gendergap mailing list >>> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> > please >>> > visit: >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
