I talked to Max on IRC, but I'm pointing here for the lurkers :)
I think that measuring labor hours via edit sessions is a great idea and I
have python library to help extract sessions from edit histories. See
https://bitbucket.org/halfak/mediawiki-utilities.
Assuming that you have a list of a user's revisions from the API, using the
session extractor to build a set of session start and end timestamps for a
user would look like this:
----------------------------
*from mwutil.lib import sessions*
# Get your revisions ordered by timestamp
# revisions = <some API call result>
events = (rev['user'], rev['timestamp'], rev) for rev in revisions
for user, session in *sessions.sessions*(events):
# write out a TSV file
print "\t".join(
str(v) for v in
[user, len(session), session[0]['timestamp'],
session[-1]['timestamp']
)
---------------------------
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Klein,Max <kle...@oclc.org> wrote:
> Thanks Nemo, I'll re-read that discussion. I think that conversation is
> where I became tentative of using bytes or edit counts.
>
> Aaron, in my own search I also noticed you wrote with Geiger. About
> counting edit hour and edit sessions. [1] Calculating content persistence
> is a bit too heavyweight for me right now since I am trying to submit to
> ACM Web Science in 2 weeks (hose CFP was just on this list). The technique
> looks great though, and I would like to help support making a WMFlabs tool
> that can return this measure.
>
> It seems like I could calculate approximate edit-hours from just looking
> at Special:Contributions timestamps. Is that correct? Would you suggest
> this route?
>
>
> [1]
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Using_Edit_Sessions_to_Measure_Participation_in_Wikipedia/geiger13using-preprint.pdf
>
>
>
> Maximilian Klein
> Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
> +17074787023
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Aaron Halfaker <
> aaron.halfa...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 7:12 AM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for
> Users?
>
> Hey Max,
>
> There's a class of metrics that might be relevant to your purposes. I
> refer to them as "content persistence" metrics and wrote up some docs about
> how they work including an example. See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Content_persistence.
>
> I gathered a list of papers below to provide a starting point. I've
> included links to open access versions where I could. These metrics are a
> little bit painful to compute due to the computational complexity of diffs,
> but I have some hardware to throw at the problem and another project that's
> bringing me in this direction, so I'd be interested in collaborating.
>
> Priedhorsky, Reid, et al. "Creating, destroying, and restoring value in
> Wikipedia." *Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on
> Supporting group work*. ACM, 2007.
> http://reidster.net/pubs/group282-priedhorsky.pdf:
>
> - Describes "Persistent word views" which is a measure of value added
> per editor. (IMO, value *actualized*)
>
> B. Thomas Adler, Krishnendu Chatterjee, Luca de Alfaro, Marco Faella,
> Ian Pye, and Vishwanath Raman. 2008. Assigning trust to Wikipedia content.
> In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym '08).
> ACM, New York, NY, USA, , Article 26 , 12 pages.
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.141.2047&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> - Describes a complex strategy for assigning trustworthiness to
> content based on implicit review. See http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/
>
> Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., Kraut, R., & Riedl, J. (2009, October). A
> jury of your peers: quality, experience and ownership in Wikipedia. In
> *Proceedings
> of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration* (p.
> 15). ACM.
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/A_Jury_of_Your_Peers/halfaker09jury-personal.pdf
>
> - Describes the use of "Persistent word revisions per word" as a
> measure of article contribution quality.
>
> Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., & Riedl, J. (2011, October). Don't bite the
> newbies: how reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work. In
> *Proceedings
> of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration* (pp.
> 163-172). ACM.
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Don't_Bite_the_Newbies/halfaker11bite-personal.pdf
>
> - Describes the use of raw "Persistent work revisions" as a measure of
> editor productivity
> - Looking back on the study, I think I'd rather use log(# of revisions
> a word persists) * words.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Sort of related, an ongoing education@ discussion "student evaluation
>> criteria". http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.education/854
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
