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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > De: Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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
