VisualEditor and Citoid perhaps? It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between the use of those tools and the editor population statistics.
Pine On Aug 15, 2015 6:12 AM, "WereSpielChequers" <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > With 8% more editors contributing over 100 edits in June 2015 than in > June 2014 <https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>, we have > now had six consecutive months where this particular metric of the core > community is looking positive. One or two months could easily be a > statistical blip, especially when you compare calender months that may have > 5 weekends in one year and four the next. But 6 months in a row does begin > to look like a change in pattern. > > As far as caveats go I'm aware of several of the reasons why raw edit > count is a suspect measure, but I'm not aware of anything that has come in > in this year that would have artificially inflated edit counts and brought > more of the under 100 editors into the >100 group. > > I know there was a recent speedup, which should increase subsequent edit > rates, and one of the edit filters got disabled in June, but neither of > those should be relevant to the Jan-May period. > > Would anyone on this list be aware of something that would have otherwise > thrown that statistic? > > Otherwise I'm considering submitting something to the Signpost. > > Regards > > Jonathan > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
