I'm open to wording changes, but "regularly active" isn't the right way to describe a group of people who average one edit per day during the last month, and whose total volume puts them in the top 0.75% of all the people (technically, accounts) that have ever made an edit. I've described that as higher-volume experienced editors. I'm open to other wording, but "regular" isn't really accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Higher-volume" is just as much of a misnomer. (And come on, you know it's not the top 0.75% of all people, because you know "accounts" isn't a "technical" thing because like 99.9% of accounts have no people behind them, and I think also no edits. We have tens of millions of accounts, but far fewer people have ever edited Wikipedia.) I'm not sure why 30 edits/month isn't "regular," but anyway, I just took out "higher-volume" because that's so clearly wrong. I don't think 500 edits + 1 year age = "experienced" so I changed it to "more-experienced," but even that, idk. Nobody thinks of an editor with 500 edits and 1 year as "experienced," and nobody thinks of an editor with 30 edits/month as highly active. I really don't want enwiki to do the WMF thing and inflate the numbers. Like, "40 million accounts!" (Bullshit, they're mostly all empty.) 100,000 active editors! (Bullshit, that's 100,00 editors with at least 1 edit, most of them only 1 edit.) 10,000 highly-active editors! (Bullshit, that's just 10,000 regularly-active editors; the highly-active number is 5,000/month.) Let's not overstate it, let's not misinform: the truth is, a hundred thousand people make at least one edit, but the really high-active editors are counted in thousands, not more. Levivich (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, it's technically accounts, because it's counting what we get from Special:CreateAccount, which doesn't neatly line up with humans. Sometimes multiple humans use one account (though we officially ban that), and sometimes one human uses multiple accounts (thought we sometimes ban that). The calculation is only from accounts that made at least one edit: 500 edits is the top 0.75% of accounts that ever made one edit. See Template:Registered editors by edit count. Choose "Table 2" in the radio buttons if you want to see only the 14 million accounts that have ever made at least one edit, rather than all 47 million registered accounts. We do not have a comparable set of numbers for (e.g.,) the 800,000 registered accounts that made 1+ edits during the previous calendar year. That, by the way, suggests that only 59 out of 60 accounts are "empty", or 17 out of 18 if you prefer to focus on those that ever made an edit here – not 99.9%.
I agree that 30 edits per month could be regular, but so can 1 edit per year, or 1 edit per month. On the other hand, someone who did a burst of 30 edits on one or two days, but hadn't edited for months before then, would be "higher volume" but not "regular". The query measures frequency, not regularity.
You have removed higher-volume because, in your opinion, it's "so clearly wrong". The accounts in question have a higher edit volume than more than 90% of the other active accounts during that time period. They also have a higher total edit volume than more than 99% of the other ever-active accounts. I'm sure that you wouldn't describe the top 10% by volume as "lower volume" or "average volume", so why do you think it's "so clearly wrong" to calling them "higher volume"? That volume actually is significantly higher than the mean, median, or mode.
NB that I didn't choose highly active because that term has been used in other contexts (mostly years ago) to mean 100 edits during the previous 30 days. In that model, 5 edits/month = active user, and 100 edits/month = highly active user.
The definition of "experienced editor" in the Special:RecentChanges filters is 500 edits + 30 days, which is lower than the query uses. New page patrollers are described as experienced editors (e.g., in Help:Unreviewed new page), and the minimum requirement is 500 edits to the mainspace + 90 days. Wikipedia:RedWarn/Documentation/Multiple Action Tool#Usage defines experienced editors as 500+ edits. You're entitled to your opinion about 500 edits + one year activity should be called "experienced", but the evidence indicates that your opinion isn't universal.
Yes, despite having 10,000 edits at that point, I would describe myself as relatively inexperienced at that point, a "sophomore editor." Is a sophomore inexperienced? Well, a sophomore is more experienced than a freshman, but still relatively inexperienced. If you wanted to say that editors with 1 year and 10k edits are "experienced" editors, I wouldn't object. But not 500 edits. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the normal definition, as evidenced by its use in other pages, and I think we should stick with the normal definition.
In particular, I think that describing these people as "more-experienced" is making them sound, well, more experienced. I think it would be much better to have them described as plain old ordinary "experienced" instead of "more experienced". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me that editors with 30 edits in the last 30 days, 500 edits total, and 1 year account age, is an arbitrary place to draw a line, and this combination of metrics isn't used elsewhere. Elsewhere Wikipedia talks about active editors (1 edit/last 30 days) and very active editors (100 edits/last 30 days), and this page should just do that as well. No need to complicate things with arbitrary subcategories of activity. So I removed the line about 10k editors altogether. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate and informative to tell people that there are about 10K higher-volume experienced editors active in any given month.
The alternative for that news source would have been them saying that the decision about the ADL involved only "a fraction of the 117,000 editors who have been active in the last 30 days", rather than them saying "a fraction of the more than 10,000 high-volume editors on the site...[and of] the 117,000 editors who have been active in the last 30 days". I'd much rather than they indicated that most editors are not high-volume editors. The median number of edits, for an account that actually makes at least one, is two. That's two ever, not two in the same month.
Also, looking outside that one news source, I think it's important for Wikipedia editors to know that regular editors are not very common. Most of Wikipedia is determined by those 10K editors. If we set the query to pick up only people like you, (5 years old, 30K+ edits ever, 100+ edits last month), then today's answer is 1,523 highly active, highly experienced editors.
Or do you just want to stick with the 'tried and true' metrics? 7,138 editors made 100+ edits last month. Would you have preferred them to say "a fraction of the more than 7,000 highly active experienced editors on the site, let alone the 117,000 editors who have been active in the last 30 days" instead? I don't see that as having a materially different overall effect than saying 10,000 myself. At some level, we just have to acknowledge that the 121 editors who posted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League is a small fraction of the number of editors who are active at any given point in time. But perhaps the difference between 1.7% and 1.2% of higher-volume editors seems significant to you, even if it doesn't seem very important to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why your query is returning a number that's 2,000 higher than wikistats. If that were true, it would be a new all-time record for Wikipedia. I trust wikistats, maybe I shouldn't, but as far as I know, the actual truth is that over the last 10 years, there are about 5,000 editors who make >100 edits/month, and the most there have ever been is just under 7k back in 2007. So when I read an article that said there were 10k "high volume" editors instead of 5k, that alarmed me. That's misinformation. I don't think your query is "tried and true metrics." Wikistats is tried and true metrics. Maybe your query is right and wikistats is wrong. This has nothing to do with the ADL RSN, it's about not propagating the false notion that there are 10k highly active editors, when we know the real number is 5k. Don't misinform, don't inflate. That's the goal. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the query to know why it gets a different answer. However, I question your belief that it is "misinformation" or "wrong" to say that there are "10,000 high-volume experienced editors", solely because there aren't also 10,000 Very Active™ editors – according to one definition of that term. Must our interest in more active or more experienced editor be limited only to users whose accounts match the definition given in m:Analytics/Metric definitions#Very active editor, and all else be barred? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one editor should be deciding what a "high-volume" or "experienced" editor is. I think we have established metrics and we should use those metrics. We categorize editors already: "active" = 1 edit/last 30 days, "very active" = 100 edits/last 30 days. If you think we should have a third category in between, propose it somewhere, make sure the data is properly vetted by people who understand these things (not me), get consensus, etc. Maybe the wikistats number is wrong, but the WMF has an analytics team with (I assume) professionals who know this stuff. The fact that you don't understand why your query differs from the official number is the evidence of why you should not be unilaterally deciding how many high-volume editors there are. Levivich (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, it appears that the difference is in what constitutes a "countable page". Only edits to a page containing a link to another page get counted. AIUI if you create a userpage that says "Hello, World!", then that doesn't count, but if you link to "Hello, World!" program, then it does. This will exclude a lot of userpages, sandboxes, and unsubmitted draft articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This histogram would look very different if I kept all 1.4 million 0-value pixelsWe really should restrict our metrics to autoconfirmed or ECP accounts, especially when defining "high-volume". Accounts below that (well, really a statistician should be helping us determine what a meaningful threshold is, but obviously the WMF has better things to do than employ anyone who knows anything about stats) are really just noise that should be disregarded for these kinds of questions. This might be because I spend like 14 hours a day looking at histograms, but I wonder at what median edit count (if any) we'd get something that actually resembled a standard bell or bimodal curve when plotting #users vs #edits/user. JoelleJay (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brought here by this comment. I don't really care about what gets displayed on this page, but to take a step back, I think it's more productive to think in terms of competency, rather than experience. First, we should encourage editors who are competent and thoughtful to contribute, and encourage those editors to work civilly with others. It's counterproductive to pressure people to potentially churn out slop or make mistakes as a means of gaining community approval. Second, edit quality is more important than edit quantity. If someone has 2,000 edits, two FAs, and productively contributes to behind-the-scenes stuff (AfD, RMs, RfCs, etc.), I would probably trust them to have better judgment than an editor with 20k edits, who has 5 previous blocks for trying to edit war over minor MOS Issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used your source for many years and the accuracy is unbelievably Poor!!!! Ex: Go to Barry Van Dyke, click on Mary Carey Van Dyke and you get a picture of Barry and a stated view of his wife. The woman in the picture is Shirley Jones, nit Mary Carey Van Dyke!! What is going on at your so called service. This is but one of hundreds of errors. I got so disturbed that, the public cannot trust, not only pictures but written materials as well. Your service is pathetic! Doesn't anyone check, Edit the work of of these volunteers many of whom don't speak good English. I check favorite actors on occasion and a few months ago, the article and picture told me he was dead. A little investigation showed that it was another elderly man with the same name. Pictures, Articles etc. are all mixed together and it can be a challenghe to figure out what is and isn't correct. 2601:183:C901:44D0:DD64:A324:DA80:7A2F (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like a Wikipedian-at-heart. Each of the errors you found should be corrected, and you could do it yourself although yes, it is often good to point them out to everyone. The Wikipedia logo correctly contains the globe with an open top which signifies that the project will never be complete, the work never ending. All we can do is nudge it along (which you've done here, sincere thanks). The errors will creep in, and many stay. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will eventually catch them, which is one of the strengths of an open-source collaborative project. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
