# Research talk:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study/Work log/2015-06-08

## Monday, June 8, 2015[edit]

Time for some preliminary stats!

- editing == made at least one edit in 24h
- main_editing == made at least one article edit in 24h
- talk_editing == made at least one talk edit in 24h
- user_editing == made at least one user/user_talk edit in 24h
- wp_editing == made at least one wp/wt edit in 24h
- productive == made at least one article edit that was not reverted in 24h
- enabled == currently has "visualeditor" user property enabled.

bucket | via_mobile | editing.k | main_editing.k | talk_editing.k | user_editing.k | wp_editing.k | productive.k | enabled.k | n |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

control | 0 | 3227 | 2461 | 427 | 782 | 86 | 1682 | 110 | 9794 |

experimental | 0 | 3250 | 2397 | 386 | 822 | 107 | 1669 | 9693 | 9728 |

control | 1 | 928 | 795 | 85 | 126 | 15 | 414 | 6 | 3670 |

experimental | 1 | 951 | 819 | 93 | 150 | 14 | 431 | 3775 | 3779 |

First, the most important test IMO, productivity:

prop.test(c(1682, 1669), c(9794, 9728)) 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction data: c(1682, 1669) out of c(9794, 9728) X-squared = 2e-04, df = 1, p-value = 0.9898 alternative hypothesis: two.sided 95 percent confidence interval: -0.01051037 0.01085275 sample estimates: prop 1 prop 2 0.1717378 0.1715666

Well... that's not significant. What if we make the denominator editors who make at least one edit?

> prop.test(c(1682, 1669), c(3227, 3250)) 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction data: c(1682, 1669) out of c(3227, 3250) X-squared = 0.3532, df = 1, p-value = 0.5523 alternative hypothesis: two.sided 95 percent confidence interval: -0.01695828 0.03233565 sample estimates: prop 1 prop 2 0.5212271 0.5135385

Still insignificant. What about those who make at least one article edit?

> prop.test(c(1682, 1669), c(2461, 2397)) 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction data: c(1682, 1669) out of c(2461, 2397) X-squared = 0.8744, df = 1, p-value = 0.3497 alternative hypothesis: two.sided 95 percent confidence interval: -0.03924835 0.01359831 sample estimates: prop 1 prop 2 0.683462 0.696287

Still insignificant. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we might find a difference in talk page usage. Let's look at that.

> prop.test(c(427, 386), c(9794, 9728)) ... X-squared = 1.781, df = 1, p-value = 0.182

No significance, how about if we only look at editors who edit at all?

> prop.test(c(427, 386), c(3227, 3250)) .... X-squared = 2.5871, df = 1, p-value = 0.1077

Closer, but still not significant. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

## What are they doing in the WP/WT namespace?[edit]

I was curious what the small set of users who work in the WP namespace are doing. I suspect they are socks or legitimate alternative accounts who don't represent newcomers. Let's check what they are up to.

> sample(user_metrics[wp_editing==1 & !via_mobile,]$user_id, 10) [1] 25331019 25358683 25373415 25357718 25393716 25367694 25347246 25386145 [9] 25383014 25352645

http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/3931

- en:Special:Contributions/Badmintonlover12 -- Edits to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple
- en:Special:Contributions/Bsdhickman -- Wikipedia:Sandbox
- en:Special:Contributions/EGuan -- Wikipedia:Sandbox
- en:Special:Contributions/GMORocks -- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
- en:Special:Contributions/HyunAChachki -- Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Angel_Haze_discography/archive1 probably found via prominent talk page link
- en:Special:Contributions/Jtapson -- Likely sock. Only edit is a vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firepool
- en:Special:Contributions/Khaiskc007 -- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects for some reason
- en:Special:Contributions/Mab541c -- Wikipedia:Sandbox
- en:Special:Contributions/Nick-CarnivalFilms -- Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television
- en:Special:Contributions/PrestonWiki -- Wikipedia:Sandbox

Looks like only one of the set is actually a sock. It also looks like it is common for newcomers to find the WP:Sandbox and to request article creations despite the fact that they could create them. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

- FYI that the en.wp Sandbox now does mention options to test VE even for IP editors (it'd be interesting to see if this has any impact whatsoever on VE-enabled sandboxes. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)