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://stat
>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 wrote:
>
>> phoebe ayers w
No opinion means no opinion and should not be interpreted in any way,
the group represents an uncertainty in the result.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/5/20 Robert Rohde :
>> The licensing update poll has been tallied.
>>
>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%)
>> "No, I am oppose
Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde 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" : 182
2009/5/22 Anthony :
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
>> 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
>> votin
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> 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?
2009/5/22 Michael Snow :
> Deliberately low threshold for eligibility.
Do we have any statistics for what the turnout was among different
demographics? In particular, do we know how many people voted that
wouldn't have been eligible under the board election suffrage rules?
If it isn't many then th
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde
> wrote:
> >>>
> The licensing up
phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>>>
The licensing update poll has been tallied.
"Yes, I am in favor of t
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>>> The licensing update poll has been tallied.
>>>
>>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%)
>>> "No, I am opposed
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, effe iets anders
wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Anthony
>
> >
> >
> > Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
> >
>
> 1) at which project (and please dont use enwiki abbreviations)
The important one (and why not).
> 2) does it matter? :)
Just wondering.
I see from
htt
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, effe iets anders
wrote:
>
>
> 2009/5/22 Anthony
>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, effe iets anders <
>> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/5/22 Anthony
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
>>> >
>>>
>>> 1) at which project
2009/5/22 Anthony
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/22 Anthony
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
>> >
>>
>> 1) at which project (and please dont use enwiki abbreviations)
>
>
> The important one (and why
2009/5/22 Anthony
>
>
> Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
>
1) at which project (and please dont use enwiki abbreviations)
2) does it matter? :)
eia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/5/20 Robert Rohde :
> > 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
>> I don't know how many people were eligible to vote in the license
>> migration, but I believe there are currently about 150,000 active
>> editors, if active is defined as "a registered user who has made more
>> than five edits in the past month." Either Erik (Moeller or Zachte), or
>> Frank, mig
2009/5/20 Robert Rohde :
> 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%)
I do want to state for the record that the only reason a "
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>> I believe there are around 600,000 qualified accounts (roughly half of
>> which from enwiki).
>
> What is your source for that?
>
>> PS. Incidentally enwiki has 9.7 M registered accounts, but 70% of
>> these have e
2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
> I believe there are around 600,000 qualified accounts (roughly half of
> which from enwiki).
What is your source for that?
> PS. Incidentally enwiki has 9.7 M registered accounts, but 70% of
> these have exactly 0 edits and 90% have less than 5 edits.
90% with less tha
at.
--Andrew Whitworth
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Gray
>
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:47:05
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result
>
>
> 2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>
>>> I thi
, might be able to confirm
that.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Gray
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:47:05
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result
2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>> I think this is a very good result, in particular th
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/21 Andrew Gray :
>> 2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>>
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
2009/5/21 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>
>>> 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
2009/5/21 Robert Rohde :
>> 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 301
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde 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 o
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde 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 cer
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
Additional information and background is available
27 matches
Mail list logo
