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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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)