For anyone who's still curious, here's[1] a set of all the editors who have made over 100 article edits on Enwiki in the past 30 days: their total article edits, total VE article edits, and the % of total made with VE.
And the winner is... User:Hessamnia![2] 1. http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4809 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20160101000000&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Hessamnia&namespace=0 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- 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
