Hello Felipe, Maybe we speak about different things now. At http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
*de <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm>* *ja<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaJA.htm> * *fr <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm>* *it<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm> * *pl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPL.htm>* *es<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm> * *nl <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm>* *pt<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaPT.htm> * *ru <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaRU.htm>* *zh<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZH.htm> * *sv <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm>* *fi<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFI.htm> **8%**6%**22%**25%**26%**15%**29%**30%**26%**15%**23%**22%* The bot share of all edits is not that insignificant. Ziko 2008/11/13 Felipe Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
