It seems like a sad projection. If you allow me to, I would call it ''the editors disenchantment''.
The editors start, paraphrasing the first e-mail, as ''growing cheerful teenagers''. Then, comes the maturity in the project after a couple years in. But the ''adulthood'' isn't a new phase in the Wikipedia, the mature phase, as it is supposed to be. It's the end. We're kept by our bunch of ''teenagers''. Why ''adults'' go away? On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru>wrote: > The very active are in the vast majority of cases still active - most >> of the names near the top of this list >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:EDITS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITS>[7] >> are blue linked which >> >> means they have edited recently. Earlier this year the number of >> editor whod made over 100,000 edits on En Wiki grew to over 150 and on >> >> my projections there will be over 200 by the end of the year. >> >> > Now, I wanted to do it sometime, but your mail motivated me to do it today. > > I counted the number of inactive users per number of contributions, taking > numbers from the first 7000 in the list. Placeholders are counted as > inactive, and this is a clear drawback, but there are too few of them to > change the trend, and some of them may be inactive as well. > > The results first. > > Range (numbers) Range (edits) #inactive % inactive > > 1-200 over 93828 32 16 > 201-400 67561-93655 33 16.5 > 401-600 52024-67556 38 19 > 601-800 43587-51942 39 19.5 > 801-1000 37805-43432 51 20.5 > 1001-1200 33271-37791 61 30.5 > 1201-1400 30256-33260 54 27 > 1401-1600 27593-30250 50 25 > 1601-1800 25364-27571 60 30 > 1801-2000 23682-25360 80 40 > 2001-2500 19699-23574 174 34.8 > 2501-3000 17089-19697 167 33.4 > 3001-3500 14777-17086 191 38.2 > 3501-4000 13049-14777 199 39.8 > 4001-4500 11674-13048 225 45 > 4501-5000 10495-11673 195 39 > 5001-5500 9570-10495 211 42.2 > 5501-6000 8699-9569 224 44.8 > 6001-6500 8011-8697 239 47.8 > 6501-7000 7379-8011 242v 48.4 > > The first conclusion is that editors with over 35K edits are much less > likely to leave, increasingly unlikely as the # of edits goes up. This is > clearly statistically significant. > > The second conclusion is that there is major loss of editors with about > 20K edits. I am not sure how statistically significant this is. > > I obviously did not try to correlate this with the lifetime, but if we > take 10K edits per year as an example, 2 years would be the most probable > lifetime. Richard Rohde reported slightly higher numbers. > > So, yes, indeed, the editors leave after a couple of years, and they do > not get replaced. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.**wikimedia.org<Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wiki-**research-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l> > -- _____________________________________________________ *M*ateus*N*obre Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data. *Freedom, acessibility, autonomy, openess, independence, transparency. That's our way.* *And yours?* +55 (84) 8896 - 1628
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
