Johan makes an important point about the adding of references. I'd just add that offline references generally take more time than online ones. That time might be time you'd have spent anyway, whether you subscribe to a particular magazine or would have read that book to stay up with your area of expertise. But it is generally more time consuming than adding content with an online cite.
At the other end of the scale, edits marked as AWB as most of mine are, are edits where you usually only see the paragraph that you are about to change. Hence AWB edits often run to several per minute. But you can easily assume that when someone saves over 60 edits in an hour they are averaging less than a minute on each of them. Someone saving an edit every couple of hours may be coming in from the garden during each rain shower, or they may be working solidly on Wikipedia through that time, and you can at best put an estimate on that. Jonathan On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 20:37, Johan Jönsson <brevlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > A few comments from an editing perspective, in case anything here is > useful: > > I think Levenshtein distance might be a useful concept here, given the > indication that I've read through and made some sort of decision around a > whole article or a significant part of an article – both for additions and > subtractions. > > When it comes to article content, the most important signifier of effort > spent on an edit beyond text length that comes to mind is whether a new ref > tag is added. If I'm referencing something, there's a fair chance that I've > not only identified a shortage or deficiency, but potentially spent time > both finding a source and reading through it to be able to reference it, > even if it results in a short sentence. > > In some languages, translations of other Wikipedia articles are common; > there might be a big difference between adding the same type of content > translated from another language version and writing it from scratch. > > //Johan Jönsson > -- > > Den tis 20 okt. 2020 kl 20:32 skrev Nate E TeBlunthuis <natha...@uw.edu>: > > > Greetings! > > > > Quantifying effort is obviously a fraught prospect, but Geiger and > > Halfaker [1] used edit sessions defined as consecutive edits by an editor > > without a gap longer than an hour to quantify the total number of labor > > hours spent on Wikipedia. I'm familiar with other papers that use this > > approach to measure things like editor experience. > > > > I'm curious about the amount of effort put into each particular article. > > Edit sessions seem like a good approach, but there are some problems: > > > > * How much time does an edit session of length 1 take? > > * Should article edit sessions be consecutive in the same article? > > * What if someone makes an edit to related article in the middle of > > their session? > > > > I wonder what folks here think about alternatives for quantifying effort > > to an article like > > > > 1. Number of wikitext characters added/removed > > 2. Levenshtein (edit) distance (of characters or tokens) > > 3. Simply the number of edits > > > > Thanks for your help! > > > > [1] Geiger, R. S., & Halfaker, A. (2013). Using edit sessions to measure > > participation in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on > Computer > > Supported Cooperative Work, 861–870. > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441873 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
