> However, measuring productivity by the difference of the times of first and last edits won't do much for those of us who work on pages for hours before pressing the save button and only save once.
Agreed. This is a limitation. However, if you're doing other work while writing the article or making intermittent saves as you go, then it will be captured. Ethnographic work suggests that what you describe is uncommon, but present. for this reason and others, it's important to see this "labor hours" estimate as a lower bound. There's a lot of off-wiki work that isn't accounted for in any candidate measures using Wikipedia data. For example, you'd have the exact same issue with edit counts and content persistence. On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:29 PM, ENWP Pine <deyntest...@hotmail.com> wrote: > However, measuring productivity by the difference of the times of first > and last edits won't do much for those of us who work on pages for hours > before pressing the save button and only save once. (: It also doesn't > measure time spent on private wikis or discussions on email and IRC, which > also are not countable as productivity if you look only at public edit > counts and logged actions. > > I'm assuming that login and logout times on all wikis are not available > for research use. If they were there would be privacy issues although > mitigation is possible. > > Pine > > ------------------------------ > From: aaron.halfa...@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:15:36 -0600 > To: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Preexsiting Researchers on Metrics for > Users? > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
