I feel like I should expand on my skepticism of HHVM as a mechanism for the observed rise in active editors.
The average edit takes 7 minutes[1,2]. HHVM reduces the time to *save* the edit by a couple seconds. 7 minutes - a couple seconds = ~7 minutes. So, HHVM doesn't really help you edit substantially faster. 1. Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013, February). Using edit sessions to measure participation in Wikipedia. In *Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work* (pp. 861-870). ACM. 2. Halfaker, A., Keyes, O., Kluver, D., Thebault-Spieker, J., Nguyen, T., Shores, K., ... & Warncke-Wang, M. (2015, May). User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time. In *Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web* (pp. 410-418). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > So, I've been digging into this a bit. Regretfully, I don't have my > results written up in a nice, consumable format. So, you'll need to deal > with my worklogs. See > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Active_editor_spike_2015/Work_log/2015-07-09 > > TL;DR: It looks like there was a sudden burst in new registrations. Work > by Neil Quinn of the Editing Team suggests that these new registrations > were largely the result of changes to the mobile app. I didn't > specifically look at 100+ monthly editors. That seems like a fine > extension of the study. I'd be happy to support someone else to do that > work. I have some datasets that should make it relatively easy. > > > If the data is correct, then [HHVM] is likely to be one of the main > reasons for the change. > > Correlation is not causation. There's no cause to arrive at this > conclusion. In my limited study of the effects of HHVM on newcomer > engagement, I found no meaningful effect. I think that, before we consider > HHVM as a cause of this, we should at least propose a mechanism and look > for evidence of that mechanism. > > See > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:HHVM_newcomer_engagement_experiment > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:49 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Most of those editors will have done 33 edits or less using V/E, and >> some, including me in 4th place, will have been having a look at V/E after >> the attention it has had recently at Wikimania, on the signpost and on >> mailing lists. I'm not sure that something that barely involves 10% of a >> group of editors could have had such a big effect. >> >> More likely and just at the right time, late 2014, Erik Zachte has >> reminded me that we had a major speed-up with php parser change. >> >> http://hhvm.com/blog/7205/wikipedia-on-hhvm >> >> >> If the data is correct, then that is likely to be one of the main reasons >> for the change. >> >> Regards >> >> Jonathan Cardy >> >> >> On 17 Aug 2015, at 19:11, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> It looks like about 10% of highly active Enwiki editors have used VE in >> the past month (across all namespaces): >> http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4795 >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:35 AM, WereSpielChequers < >> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On a very non-scientific measure of how few editors currently use V/E, I >>> took some snapshots of the most recent 500 mainspace edits >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500&days=30>yesterday >>> and was getting circa 1% tagged as visual editor, I've just run two sample >>> this afternoon and the first had not a single edit tagged Visual editor and >>> the other only four, so unless some of those experienced users using V/e >>> have opted out of having their edits tagged V/E, I'm assuming "gobs and >>> gobs" are either on other language wikis, heavily skewed to a time of day I >>> haven't sampled or big in number but still too small a proportion to >>> account for the increase in the number of editors doing >100 edits per >>> month. >>> >>> On 17 August 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are gobs and gobs* of people using VE. Many of them are >>>> experienced editors. >>>> >>>> I'm also interested in looking at VE adoption over time (especially by >>>> veteran editors). I'll sniff around and let y'all know if I find anything. >>>> >>>> No idea what might be causing the boost in active editor numbers. But >>>> it's exciting to see :) >>>> >>>> Anyone else have data that bears on these questions? >>>> >>>> - J >>>> >>>> *non-scientific estimate drawn from anecdata >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, WereSpielChequers < >>>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's an interesting theory, but are there many people actually using >>>>> V/E now? >>>>> >>>>> I've just gone back through recent changes looking for people using >>>>> it, and apart from half a dozen newbies I've welcomed I'm really not >>>>> seeing >>>>> many V/E edits. >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the history of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&offset=&limit=500&action=history> >>>>> the last 500 edits go back three months. So apart from the Interior, you >>>>> and I Kerry I'm not sure there is a huge number of people testing it, and >>>>> I >>>>> wasn't testing it in the first 6 months of this year. I did see some >>>>> research where they were claiming that retention rates for V/E editors >>>>> were >>>>> now as good as for people using the classic editor, but I would be >>>>> surprised if there were enough people using V/E to make a difference to >>>>> these figures, especially as this is about the editors doing over 100 >>>>> edits >>>>> a month. >>>>> >>>>> I agree it would be interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully >>>>> or partially) by editor by year of original signup. But I think the long >>>>> awaited boost from V?E editing is yet to come, if the regulars have >>>>> started >>>>> to increase that is likely to be due to something else. >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>> On 15 August 2015 at 15:11, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Is there any way of telling what proportion of these 8% appear to be >>>>>> using the Visual Editor either exclusively or partially? It might be >>>>>> interesting to track the take-up of the VE (fully or partially) by editor >>>>>> by year of original signup. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kerry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: >>>>>> wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>> WereSpielChequers >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 August 2015 11:12 PM >>>>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities < >>>>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; The Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> Research Committee mailing list <rco...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>>>> *Subject:* [Wiki-research-l] Has the recent increase in English >>>>>> wikipedia's core community gone beyond a statistical blip? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jonathan T. Morgan >>>> Senior Design Researcher >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Morgan >> Senior Design Researcher >> Wikimedia Foundation >> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
