Actually, yes, we do; Aaron Halfaker did a lot of work quantifying and defining 'man-hours' in a Wikipedia sense.
On 15 January 2014 10:15, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com>wrote: > Marc, > > It isn't just the vandalism and reversion of vandalism that we've lost as a > result of the edit filters (originally known as abuse filters) there is > also the lost userpage warnings, AIV reports, block messages and removal of > AIV reports:) But yes the majority would have been vandalism and its > reversion. > > Supporting this theory, we have as one would expect a drop in the number of > editors clearing the five edit a month threshold - typically any vandal who > got through the whole four level warning cycle and then did something block > worthy would have made it into the 5 or more edits count for that month. > > I suspect we've also seen a some of our active vandal fighters drop away or > shift to things that involve fewer edits per hour. Unfortunately I don't > think we yet have any sort of estimated editor hours donated figure, for > example one could do this crudely by only counting unique hours in which an > editor has made at least one edit. It would be salutary to see how that was > changing over time. > > Also the pattern of decline in raw edit count fits with a steady refinement > of the edit filters from 2009 to the present day. The exception of course > being the decline from 2007-2009, but I suspect much of that comes with > Huggle et al speeding up vandalism reversion. Once you start blocking > people after half a dozen edits rather than a couple of dozen you are bound > to have a drop in total editing, > > Of course there remains the issue that our audience is still growing faster > than the Internet whilst nobody really knows whether the underlying rate > of goodfaith editing is increasing or stable. I suspect that much of this > is the growth of mobile where we are much more of a broadcast medium than > an interactive one. But that is a rather more tenuous theory than the known > effectiveness of the edit filters. > > I wrote an essay about this last > spring< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F > >, > I'd be interested in your take on it. Erik Zachte tweeted it and I don't > think that anyone has rebutted the main points. > > Regards > > Jonathan > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:38:15 -0500 > > From: "Marc A. Pelletier" <m...@uberbox.org> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users > > Message-ID: <52d4bf37.90...@uberbox.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > > > The English > > > Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and > > > is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the > > > edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. > > > > That's... come /on/ Tim! You know better than to say silly things like > > that. > > > > The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented > > edits and the revert that would have taken place). :-) I used to do a > > lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried > > doing a bit over a year ago. The amount of "surface" vandalism has gone > > down a *lot* since. > > > > -- Marc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Oliver Keyes Product Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>